
Class IjY 




RnnJc 


L 5 


GipyriglitN? 





CQIXRIGHT DEPQSfE 



APOLOGETICS 

OR 

A SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN 
EVIDENCE 



IN HOC SIGNO VINCES!" 



APOLOGETICS 



OR 



A SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN 
EVIDENCE 



BY 

s 



Conrad Emil Lindberg, d.d„ ll. d. 

PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, ETC. 

AUGUSTANA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 

ROCK ISLAND, ILL. 




ROCK ISLAND, ILL. 

AUGUSTANA BOOK CONCERN 
1917 



*r 



COPYBIGHT, 1917, 
BY 

Augttstana Book Conceen. 



V 

FEB -2 

©CI. A 4 5 543 5 



PREFACE 

There is no fully concrete case of a child born and reared 
in this world without any religious influence. Attempts 
have been made to educate and absolutely exclude religion, 
but a child secluded for the purpose will sooner or later re- 
ceive religious impressions. Guarded children have mani- 
fested a worshipful curiosity in looking at the sun and at 
wonderful objects. Experience proves that every human 
being is receptive and responsive under religious influences. 
The history of Religion shows the reality of spiritual im- 
pressions. The religious impressions would be impossible, 
if there was no God as the first cause. Man was originally 
created as religiously bent. 

Think of the first human beings, Adam and Eve, when 
they were alone and gazed at the sun, moon, stars and other 
objects ! What would have been the result in their specula- 
tions, if there had been no higher guidance, intuition or 
revelation ! We must also consider mankind later on, when 
the eyes of man were opened to see the starry sky as innu- 
merable worlds. How would man have felt on this small 
globe, if there had been no revelation concerning God as the 
personal Ruler in the universe! Independent of all specu- 
lations all feel safer in the knowledge of the existence of a 
personal God as our Father. 

Without the Holy Scriptures nothing certain would be 
known concerning the future destiny of man and the world. 
No book gives us such assurance as the Bible does. In the 
light of the Bible the riddle of the universe is solved. Only 
the Bible can console the human heart and show the way to 
salvation. Experience proves that the Bible is the only book 
which is God's own book, revealing to us the Son of God in 



Christ Jesus. Except He had come from the world beyond 
and told us things which otherwsie would have been un- 
known, our knowledge had become limited and our salvation 
impossible. If we only knew and were sure in regard to 
these things, some answer ; but one thing is certain, that if 
the Bible does not make us certain, no other book will, and 
the reading of the words of Jesus is overpowering. When 
we study comparatively the ethnic religions and the sayings 
of their best men, we feel that Christianity is the climax in 
religion and Christ is the only Master. The best apology of 
the Bible is the Bible, and the best apologist of Christ is He 
Himself. If the New Testament would be constantly and 
prayerfully read by inquirers, there would be no need of 
Christian apologies, but as things are, both Christian evi- 
dence and Apologetics are necessary and useful. 

Even if we must regret the paucity of thorough-paced 
Bible students and good readers of the Scriptures, we re- 
joice in the fact that there is no book within the bounds of 
Christianity as much read as the Bible and especially the 
New Testament. When the number of readers of books like 
Paine's "The Age of Reason" grow less and less, the Bible 
gains a more and more extended circle of devoted friends. 
The modern attacks on the Bible have proved what a strong 
fortress the Bible is. 

There are Bible readers of a superficial character who 
become skeptics, doubters and carpers, but if they are smit- 
ten in their conscience, they will soon cease to haggle about 
small matters. We hear of honest doubters who have real 
intellectual difficulties, and who by nature are critically in- 
clined, but they are open to conviction. The study of Apolo- 
getics will be helpful to them. 

The field of Apologetics is very wide, and no textbook can 
present the whole scope of the science, or discipline. We 
find, therefore, that many books only discuss a few topics, 
especially such as are characteristic of the theological dis- 
cussions of the times referred to or of the age in which we 
live. It is self-evident that in our day the Bible-question is 



the most important. If we are able to prove that the Bible 
is the plenary inspired Word of God, then all the questions 
of Apologetics are answered. But on account of the leading 
proof in Christian experience, some hold that the Evidence 
of Christian Experience is the only and best Apologetics. 
And yet we find how many are interested in the usual apolo- 
getical topics as the arguments of the existence of God, 
special revelation, inspiration, miracles, prophecy, the per- 
son of Christ, the immortality of the soul, etc. Others are 
interested in Comparative Religion. But it is such a com- 
prehensive subject that it cannot be presented in an ordinary 
textbook. We are also aware of the interest in physical or 
natural sciences, which, especially among the young, calls 
forth many curious questions concerning creation and an- 
thropology. The advance of the modern sciences forces 
upon teachers new methods of treatment. 

Teachers of Apologetics in our universities, theological 
seminaries and colleges are often handicapped, because 
apologetical systems contain only a few subjects which may 
be fully treated, but other subjects necessary in a textbook 
are omitted. Such being the case, students are compelled to 
buy a number of books. It seems, therefore, most con- 
venient if the textbook touches upon all the principal sub- 
jects which the professor may develop more fully in lectures 
and discussions. 

In order to meet the requirements referred to as far as 
practicable, the most necessary topics are in this textbook 
treated in the following divisions, preceded by an Introduc- 
tion containing a brief sketch of the History of Apologetics : 
Theological, Anthropological, Soteriological, Pneumatologi- 
cal and Eschatological Apologetics. The terminology may 
sound dogmatical, but we trust that the relationship in terms 
instead of being a drawback will serve a systematic presen- 
tation. Some of the subjects are handled in a very brief 
outline, but others are given a fuller statement and explana- 
tion, as e. g. the Christian experience, but lengthy discus- 
sions are impracticable in a short textbook. We hold that 



8 

a manual of instruction should not be prolix in order to 
serve as a guidebook in class-work, discussions and lectures. 
But the seminar-textbook may, any way, be written in such 
a form as will facilitate home-study, especially by the help 
of monographs and collateral reading. If some Systems of 
Evidence present a treatise on Comparative Religion, it is 
not necessary in a textbook of instruction, when the best 
equipped seminaries and the leading universities offer 
special courses in Comparative Religion and in the Philoso- 
phy of Religion. A course on the fulfillment of prophecy is 
usually given in the Exegetical Departments. Modern Apol- 
ogetics does not pay such attention as formerly to the argu- 
ments for miracles, although some Systems discuss fully the 
usual proofs. It is considered that the best proofs of mirac- 
ulous facts are the Inspired Word of God and the Christian 
Experience. If the Bible is not the Word of God, we have 
no basis to stand on. Without the Scriptures, there would 
be a terrible vacuum in human knowledge. The Creation is 
the first great miracle, the Incarnation the second, greater, 
the Resurrection of Christ and its effects the third and 
greatest, but the Regeneration in Christian Experience 
binds all the miracles together as an impregnable citadel 
or fortress in the defense of the truth of Christianity. Many 
of the old proofs have received a new setting in the chain 
of defense, as e. g. Testimonium Spiritus Sancti interum in 
its wider scope by the emphasis on the evidence of Christian 
experience. 

The evidence of Apologetics has changed since the time 
of Butler and Paley, although the work of these writers and 
their followers always will be useful in apologetic activity, 
but we must consider the nature and method of the modem 
assault upon Christianity by pantheism with its historical 
criticism, by modern destructive Biblical criticism, by 
pseudo-evolution theories, by the many phases of modern in- 
fidelity and by the influence of oriental philosophy and its 
occult sciences. The subtle dangers from the attacks by 
these sciences are also pointed out in this book. But modern 



Apologetics by more comprehensive methods does not reject 
the well-attested means of defense. All the historical foun- 
dations and approved principles must stand. The arguments 
for the plenary Inspiration of the Bible will be stronger by 
overcoming negative criticism and by using improved scien- 
tific means. The old arguments by fulfilled prophecy are 
stronger than ever as a result of excavations and monu- 
mental evidence. Even if modern criticism had been able 
to prove its theories in regard to Daniel and other books, 
a futile attempt, we must consider that the prophecies in 
regard to the first Advent of Christ have been fulfilled. And 
even if Higher Criticism had proved its data concerning 
Daniel, there are other prophecies in Daniel which were 
fulfilled, as e. g. about the Roman empire, etc. Christ testi- 
fied to the truth of Daniel. Consider also how the prophe- 
cies concerning the Jews and Israel have been fulfilled and 
are being fulfilled. Christ's prophecies in regard to Jerusa- 
lem and other events were fulfilled, and others will be. The 
prophecies of Paul, Peter and John are in process of ful- 
filment. 

By the closer touch with the nations in the old East the 
Christian doctrines stand forth as superior, and Christ be- 
comes more and more the Light of the whole world. Jesus 
Christ, who liveth and was dead, and is alive forevermore, 
is King of kings and the great Master. Christianity is the 
religion not only of the Cross and atonement, but also of 
redemption. The reality of Christianity evidences itself as 
the redemptive power of the world. And Christian Experi- 
ence proves the truth of the claim of Christianity. Non- 
Christians will find the truth by experiment in experience. 

By the books on Apologetics and collateral reading men- 
tioned in Bibliography, the student will be helped in special- 
izing when preparing class-papers, and in Thesis-work. It 
was not an easy task to make a list of books, and the reader 
might find some changes or additions desirable, but we hope 
that the list, in the main, will be found satisfactory. The 
student at home, or the general reader, may find several 



10 

books in the list which will be of service in studying special 
topics. 

By experience the author knows the hard task in reading 
proofs, and, heartily, he thanks the Rev. O. V. Holmgrain 
for able assistance in proofreading. 

The author expresses the hope that this textbook will fill 
some need in the wide scope of apologetical service, both in 
the halls of instruction and in the practical work of defense 
of the truth in the Church. 

Conrad Emil Lindberg. 

Augustana Theological Seminary, Rock Island, III. 
Epiphany, January 6th, 1917. 



CONTENTS 

APOLOGETICS. 
Introduction to Apologetics. „.„„ 

PAGE. 

§1. Definition of Apologetics 17 

§2. History of Apologetics 18 

1. The Ancient Period 18 

a. The Ante-Nicene Period 18 

b. The Post-Nicene Period 21 

2. The Catholic Scholastic Period 22 

3. The Protestant Scholastic Period 22 

4. The Modern Period 24 

§3. Causes of Infidelity 26 

1. Historical Causes 26 

2. Ecclesiastical Causes 27 

3. The false modern Science 27 

4. Ethical Causes 27 

5. Social Causes 28 

§4. Divisions of Apologetics 29 

I. THEOLOGICAL APOLOGETICS. 

§5. Antecedent Fundamental Pacts 30 

1. Theism 30 

a. Proofs for the existence of God 30 

The Ontological, Augustine, Anselmic, Cartesian 31 

Rational Realism 32 

The Moral 32 

The Cosmological argument 33 

The Teleological argument 35 

b. Theism claims that the world is real 38 

c. The Creation of the world 39 

d. Classification of Theism 48 

1) Intuitive Theism 48 

2 ) Demonstrative Theism 49 

3) Transcendental Theism 49 

4) Ethical Theism 49 

5) Social Theism 49 



12 

PAGE. 

6) Personal Theism 49 

7) Mystical Theism 50 

e. Anti-theistic Theories 50 

1) Atheism 50 

2) Materialism 50 

3) Pantheism 51 

4) Positivism 52 

5) Secularism 53 

2. Philosophical Facts as Fundamental 53 

a. Philosophy of Religion 53 

b. Philosophy of History 54 

c. Philosophy of Christianity 55 

3. Apocalyptical Facts 55 

§6. The Canonical Books of the Bible as Fundamental 56 

1. The Genuineness and Credibility of the Bible Generally 

Considered 56 

a. The determination as to the Canon 56 

b. The uncorrupted preservation of the books 58 

c. The credibility of the books 58 

2. General Remarks on the Inspiration of the Scriptures 59 

§7. The Bible and Modern Criticism 60 

1. The Modern Criticism and Inspiration 61 

2. Modern Criticism in Relation to the Historicity of the 

Books and Related Questions 63 

1) Some considerations in regard to the Old Testament. . . 64 

The Pentateuch 65 

The archeological discoveries 67 

The book of Daniel 68 

2) Some considerations in regard to the New Testament. . 70 

The theory of Baur 70 

Seeming contradictions 73 

3) Evidence in regard to the New Testament from some 

of the archeological sources or "finds" 76 

§8. Immanence of God 77 

1. Deism 78 

2. Agnosticism 79 

§9. Miraculous Facts 80 

1. Objections to Miracles 80 

1) Miracles are a violation of the laws of nature 80 

2) Miracles are excluded by the uniformity of nature 80 

3) Miracles do not happen nowadays; therefore, they hap- 

pened not at all 81 

2. Arguments For the Truth of Miracles 82 



13 

II. ANTHROPOLOGICAL APOLOGETICS. PAGE . 
§10. The Creation of Man 84 

1. The Claim of the Bible and Christianity 84 

2. Various Arguments Against the Pseudo-Evolution Theory 87 

3. Unity of the Human Race 89 

§11. Man's Natuee 90 

§12. Moral Evil 92 

1. The Account of the Fall of Man as Historical 92 

2. The Cause of Moral Evil 92 

3. The Fact of Human Sin 93 

§13. Physical Evil 94 

1. Attempts to Explain the Reasons for Physical Evil 95 

2. False Theories 97 

a. False optimism 97 

b. Pessimism 97 

c. The "New Thought" propaganda, the Christian Science 98 

III. SOTERIOLOGICAL APOLOGETICS. 

§14. Man's Need of Redemption 102 

§15. The Person of the Saviour 102 

1. The Possibility of Incarnation 102 

a. The idea of a God-man is self-contradictory 103 

Schenkel's theory. 

b. The idea is a myth 104 

The theory of Strauss. 

Renan's "Life of Jesus" 107 

c. The incarnation is inconsistent on account of the 

smallness of this planet among so many 109 

2. The Historicity of Jesus 110 

3. The Divinity of Christ 115 

§16. The Resurrection of Christ 117 

1. General Observations 117 

2. The Story of the Resurrection 119 

3. The Anti-Resurrection Theories 122 

1) The swoon theory 122 

2) The vision theory 123 

3) The spiritual telegram theory 123 

4) Martineau's theory 125 

§17. The Work of the Saviour 126 

1. The Gospel of Christ's Death is the Only Satisfactory 

Scheme of Salvation 126 

2. The Vicarious Atonement 127 



14 

3. Christianity is the Best Religion 131 

a) The work of a living Christ 131 

b) Christianity is characterized by openness and simplicity 132 

c) The spirituality of the worship 132 

d) Christianity is superior in the humiliation of man and 

the exaltation of God 132 

e) Christianity proves its superiority by its great effects 133 

f) Christianity wins over other religions by its positive 

statements tested by experience 133 

4. Christ's Continued Work as High Priest and King 135 

IV. PNEUMATOLOGICAL APOLOGETICS. 

§18. The Natural Experience 136 

1. The General Experience in Relation to the World 136 

2. The Natural Experience in Relation to Mind or Ego 138 

§19. The Christian Experience 140 

1. The Christian Experience in Relation to Spiritual Realities 140 

2. Such an Experience is a Fact 142 

3. The Beginning and Development of the Experience 143 

4. The Continuation and Growth of the Experience 151 

§20. The Scientific Verification of the Evidence of the Ex- 
perience 155 

1. The Possibility of Such a Verification 155 

2. The Method of the Verification 160 

1) The change in the experience of regeneration is within 

the sphere of consciousness 161 

2 ) The knowledge of the cause 161 

3) The continued experience of the same kind by many 

is another scientific test 163 

4) The simplicity of this method 163 

§21. The Christian Experimental Certainty as to Leading Ob- 
jects of Faith 164 

§22. Problems of the Rational Understanding of Objects of 

Faith, Although Supported by the Christian Experience 167 

1. The Ontological Doctrine of the Trinity 168 

2. The Problem of Belief in Angelology 170 

3. The Problem of the Belief in the Church as a Divine 

Institution 173 

V. ESCHATOLOGICAL APOLOGETICS. 

§23. The Immortality of the Soul 177 

1. Proofs for Immortality 177 

A. The historical argument 177 



15 

B. The indestructibility of matter as a proof 178 

C. The metaphysical proof, based on the simplicity and 

immateriality of the soul 178 

D. The teleological proof from the inadequacy of the 

present life, which without immortality would be a 
beginning without end or purpose 178 

E. The moral argument 179 

F. The argument of love 179 

G. The individual instinctive proof of immortality 179 

H. The theological proof 181 

I. The soteriological proof 181 

J. The eschatological argument 181 

K. The Biblical absolute proof 182 

2. The Christian Conception of Immortality Constitutes an 
Important Evidence for the Superiority of Christianity 
and its Divine Origin 182 

§24. The Second Advent of the Redeemer 183 

§25. The Resurrection of the Dead 183 

1. The Probability of the Resurrection of the Body 184 

2. The Possibility of the Resurrection 184 

3. The Biblical Absolute Proof 186 

§26. The Immediate Consequences 188 

1. The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment 189 

a) The doctrine is supported by conscience 189 

b) Its rationality 190 

c) It is reasonable 190 

d) Christ teaches the doctrine 190 

e) The vicarious death of our Saviour proves it 190 

2. Life Eternal and the Kingdom of God 191 

a. The contrast of some non-Biblical views 191 

b. The Biblical picture of the future glory 196 

Books on Apologetics and Collateral Reading 201 

Index 209 



'Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, 
a conviction of things not seen.** 



Introduction to Apologetics. 



§1. DEFINITION OF APOLOGETICS. 

Apologetics is the science of aTroXoydaOatj which implies a 
science or discipline which investigates the way or manner 
of defense. The science of Apologetics, therefore, stands 
related to Apology as a theory to practice, just as Homiletics 
to a sermon, or Liturgies to worship. But there is this dif- 
ference, that empirically we never see a science of Apolo- 
getics which might not pass over into Apology. Apologetics 
never restricts itself to the theory, but results in scientific 
defense itself. 

Christian Apologetics has for its object the defense of 
Christianity. An Apology is a particular defense of the 
Christian faith, especially with reference to a definite attack. 

Apologetics may accordingly be defined in the following 
way : Christian Apologetics is the scientific defense of Chris- 
tianity, the science of Apology, embodying the principles of 
vindication both in a negative and positive way. All Apolo- 
getics is Apology, but not all Apology is Apologetics. Apolo- 
getics must be distinguished from Polemics. The attacks 
of Apologetics concern the general assault against Christian 
truth as such, but Polemics, the science of Christian war- 
fare, contends against all tendencies which apprehend in a 
wrong way the connections of the eternal truths with the 



18 

facts of Christianity. Polemics is a science which teaches 
the methods of attack against disfigurement of Christianity 
and wrong conceptions in regard to Christian doctrine. 

There is a double problem in Apologetics, because the 
attacks may be against the eternal truth itself, or against 
its temporal phase in its historical character. 

§2. HISTORY OF APOLOGETICS. 

The history of Apologetics may be divided into the fol- 
lowing periods : 

1. The Ancient Period (100—754). 

a. The Ante-Xicene Period (100—325). 

b. The Post-Nicene Period (325 — 754) . 

2. The Catholic Scholastic Period (754 — 1517). 

3. The Protestant Scholastic Period (1517—1800). 

4. The Modern Period (1800—). 

In order to bring before us the Apologetical activity during 
these periods we will present a few outlines, or sketches, of 
the kind and manner of work performed by the apologists. 

1. The Ancient Period. 
a. The Ante-Xicene Period. 

During the period of original missionary Christian activi- 
ty, the period of formation and the times of tribulation, the 
defense of Christianity is carried on both against Jews and 
Gentiles. It was the time when the Church had to learn 
the great lessons of victory as an Ecclesia Militans, and that 
the road was like the Master's, a via dolorosa. 

The apostles themselves began the Apologetic activity and 
their immediate disciples continued it. This is evident both 
in the New Testament writings and in those of the Apostolic 
Fathers. 

The epistle to Diognet forms the connecting link between 
the Apostolic and Apologetic Fathers. The writer of this 
epistle belongs to the great unknown, but he shed lustre on 
the Christian name, when it was assailed both by Jews and 



19 

Gentiles. The letter is a brief and masterly vindication of 
Christian life from actual experience, and contains 12 chap- 
ters. It was probably written during the reign of Marcus 
Aurelius. Diognetus was an inquiring heathen of high 
rank, and was probably the tutor of Marcus Aurelius. 

In regard to the Apologetical activity of the Orient we 
would just mention the Athenian bishops Quadra tus and 
Aristides, the philosopher. The Apology of Quadratus has 
been lost, but Eusebius refers to it. It was addressed to 
Hadrian. The Apology of Aristides was partly recovered 
in an Armenian translation and published in 1878. Both 
apologies were of great value as showing the true contents 
of the Christian religion over against prevailing misconcep- 
tions. 

A far more prominent apologist is Justin the Martyr, who 
was a philosopher. He devoted his whole mature life to the 
defense of Christianity. He has written two apologies 
against the heathen, one containing 68 chapters, and the 
other 25. Justin also wrote a dialogue with the Jew Trypho. 
In the apologies he speaks as a philosopher to a philosopher, 
and in the dialogue as a believer in the 0. T. with a son of 
Abraham. Justin transformed his Platonic reminiscences 
by the Johannean doctrine of the Logos. He looks upon 
Christianity as the highest reason. Compare the Johannean 
Logos with the Logos Spermatikos of Justin. He held that 
Christ was the Logos incarnate. He said that whatever is 
rational is Christian, and whatever is Christian is rational. 

The defense of Christianity was continued by Tatian, 
Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch. The latter wrote 
a work of three books to Autolycus, an educated heathen. 
His object was to convince him of the falsehood of idolatry 
and the truth of Christianity. He proved the upright life 
of the Christians. 

Worthy of special notice is the Alexandrian school of 
Theology. The most learned representatives were Clement 
and Origen. This Theology is a regenerated form of the 
religious philosophy of Philo and also a positive refutation 



20 

of the false Gnosis. The inspiring thought of Clement is 
that Christianity satisfies all the intellectual and moral as- 
pirations of man. Origen must be counted as one of the fore- 
most apologists. His refutation of Celsus' attack upon 
Christianity, in eight books, and written about 248, is one 
of the ripest productions of the whole ancient apologetical 
literature. Celsus with all his contempt for the new religion 
considered it important enough to be opposed by an extended 
work, "A True Discourse". His book is very offensive in its 
utterances concerning the mother of Christ. Concerning 
Christ he declares that He learned the magical arts in Egypt, 
and His disciples were deceivers. Celsus denies the super- 
natural and the whole idea of Revelation. According to his 
opinion, Christianity has no rational foundation, but has its 
support in the imaginary fear of future punishments. But 
Celsus refutes himself, and in his recognition of the his- 
torical facts of Christianity he furnishes strong weapons 
against modern infidelity, which holds that the historical 
books of Christianity are a later invention. Celsus says: 
"I know everything, we have had it all from your own books, 
and need no other testimony." He refers to the Gospels of 
Matthew, Luke and John and makes about 80 quotations 
from the Gospels. In the Occident we find no such scientific 
productiveness during this period as in the Orient. The 
Latin apologists are more practical and juridical in their 
matter and form. They plead for the legal right of Chris- 
tianity to exist. The prominent apologists are Tertuilian 
and Minucius Felix. The former's great work is called 
"Apologeticus." In this work he triumphantly repels the at- 
tacks of the heathen and pleads also for religious liberty. 
Minucius Felix wrote an Apology under the name of "Octav- 
ius." It is presented in the form of a dialogue between two 
good friends, and Minucius serves as umpire. The apologeti- 
cal value of their work is considerable. It gives us an insight 
into the controversy between the old and new religion among 
the cultured classes. It is an eloquent defense of Monothe- 
ism and Christianity. Among other apologists during this 



21 

period may be mentioned Cyprian, Arnobius and Lactan- 
tius. 

b. The Post-Nicene Period. 

During this period the battlefield is different, as the 
Church is now recognized by the State. Polemics against 
heresies are now necessary, but the apologetical activity also 
continues. 

Eusebius of Caesarea presented the usual arguments 
against the heathen religion in his "Evangelic Preparation" 
and his "Evangelic Demonstration." He laid great stress 
upon the prophecies as material proof for the Christian re- 
ligion. 

The last direct and systematic attack against Christianity 
proceeded from Julian. He repeated the arguments of Cel- 
sus and Porphyry. He calls the religion of "the Galilean" 
an impious invention. In his view Jesus, "the dead Jew," 
did nothing remarkable. The Synoptics and Paul did not 
call Him God. John only dared to do it and gained adherents 
by cunning artifice. Julian further points out what he 
claims to be contradictions in the Bible, and he puts the Bi- 
ble far below the Hellenic literature. In examining the 
books of Julian, of which we find fragments in the Refuta- 
tion of Julian by Cyril of Alexandria, it is evident that in 
many instances Julian proves the historical truths of 
Christianity. He admits that Jesus was born in the reign 
of Augustus, and bears testimony to the genuineness and 
authenticity of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. 
He concedes their early date and even argues for it. And he 
refers to Paul's Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians and 
the Galatians. Julian, therefore, has undesignedly borne 
witness to many facts in the New Testament. In attempting 
to overthrow the Christian religion, he confirmed it. 

Theodoret also wrote an apologetic and polemic work in 
twelve treatises. He compares the prophecies and miracles 
of the Bible with the heathen oracles and proves how infer- 
ior the latter are. 



22 

Among the Latin apologists the most worthy of mention 
are: Augustine, Orosius and Salvianus. They struck a dif- 
ferent path from the Greeks, and answered the objection of 
the heathen that the overthrow of idolatry and the victory 
of Christianity were the causes of the decline of the Roman 
empire. Augustine answered the charge in his great work 
"On the City of God/' This work is very powerful in its 
refutation of heathenism and its vindication of Christianity. 
It is a worthy close to the contest of the old Catholic church 
with paganism. 

2. The Catholic Scholastic Period. 

The Apologetics during this period serves practical pur- 
poses less than reenforcement of the Christian conscious- 
ness. Nothing original was produced in the way of argu- 
ments against heathenism. But a new defense became 
necessary against Islam. 

John of Damascus wrote controversial writings against 
the new religion, which are especially interesting on account 
of the author's nearness to the beginning of Islam. Other 
writers may be mentioned, as Peter of Clugny, Thomas of 
Aquinum, who wrote "De veritate fidei contra Gentiles," 
which was directed against Jews and Mohammedans. Mar- 
silius Ficinus, who wrote a philosophical apology, Savona- 
rola, who wrote "Triumphus crucis, seu de veritate religio- 
nis Christianse," and Ludvig Vives, who endeavored to prove 
the reasonableness of Christianity. A sentence of Savona- 
rola expresses the leading principle of the philosophical 
apologists, namely, "gratia praesupponit naturam." 

3. The Protestant Scholastic Period. 

The Reformers did not busy themselves with Apologetics 
in the proper sense. Immediately after the Reformation we 
meet with Philippe de Mornay's "The Verity of the Chris- 
tian religion." A much more important work was published 
by Hugo Grotius, namely, "De Veritate Religionis Chris- 
tianae." The most prominent work among the Catholics 



23 

was Pascal's "Pensees sur la religion." He pictured the 
misery of man apart from God, and the bliss of man with 
God. He based the defense of Christianity on the Christian 
life itself. 

During the second half of the 17th century and the whole 
of the 18th century Deism was flourishing in different forms 
in Germany, England and France. The Wolffian philoso- 
phy prepared the way for Deism. Such English deists as 
Herbert of Cherbury and Hobbes were answered by many 
writers. Some of the Apologists yielded too much, often 
sacrificing the kernel to save the shell ; others, however, as- 
sumed a decided polemical character and presented the his- 
torical evidence of Christianity. Lardner showed with great 
minuteness the trustworthiness of the New Testament. But- 
ler's great work "The Analogy" and Paley's "View of the 
Evidences of Christianity" are standard works in Apolo- 
getics. 

Voltaire and Rousseau were the leading representatives 
of French free thought. The contest against them and the 
Encyclopedists was carried on by such men as Bergier, Abbe 
Guene, Chateaubriand et al., and Abbe Migne published a 
vast collection of apologies. 

The corresponding movement in Germany to Deism was 
called Aufklarung. Its origin may be traced to the Cartes- 
ian philosophy and the Wolffian attempt of mathematical 
demonstration of truth. The best known authors of the "Il- 
lumination" are Lessing and Reimarus. The Wolfenbuttel 
Fragments exhibit the worst features of unbelief. Among 
the German apologists may be mentioned Lilienthal and 
Kleuker. Then came the strife between Rationalism and 
Supernaturalism, and Apology becomes Polemics. Under 
the influence of Storr a new apologetic method arose in the 
Tubingen school, which method became an attempt to make 
apology a science of faith. Miiller was a representative of 
this tendency. 



24 



4. The Modern Period. 



The modern Pantheism, Materialism and Higher Biblical 
criticism have called forth a new apologetical activity. 
Among the many great authorities for the negative criticism 
of the modern period we mention Schenkel, Strauss, Renan 
and Baur. In the nineteenth century criticism the spirit of 
Spinoza revives. Modern critics are engaged in a study in 
which Spinoza was a pioneer. The attacks on Christianity 
have passed from denials of individual doctrines to an antag- 
onism against the very foundations of the Bible. This is the 
climax and final attack. Some of the leading attacks during 
the nineteenth century may be classified under the terms 
"rationalistic" and "mythical." To the former class belongs 
e. g. Schenkel's "Sketch of the Character of Christ." Strauss 
and Renan are representatives of the latter class. Even if 
the "Leben Jesu" by Strauss and "Vie de Jesus" by Renan 
are nearly forgotten, these books deserve to be studied, be- 
cause as history repeats itself, infidelity does likewise, and 
the old forms of unbelief arise again in a different dress. 
The Tubingen school led the van in the modern attempt to 
misrepresent primitive Christianity. Of all modern oppon- 
ents of the old faith the great Baur was the greatest. 

To understand the modern criticisms it is necessary to 
study Baur and perhaps also the Hegelian philosophy, be- 
cause Baur's conception of history is pervaded by said phi- 
losophy. Apologetics must also take notice of the Higher 
Criticism in regard to the Old Testament. Astruc was per- 
haps the leading pioneer. He called emphatically attention 
to the usage of two names in Genesis, namely, Elohim and 
Jehovah and concluded that Moses used two documents 
which he called the Elohim and Jehovah documents. The 
Document hypothesis was followed by a more extreme disin- 
tegration which developed the Fragment hypothesis deduct- 
ed from the former and held by Vater, Hartman et al. Then 
appeared the Supplement hypothesis, advocated by Bleek, 
De Wette et al. This theory holds that an original Elohim 



document had been worked up by a Jehovist writer and 
through many supplements gathered from various sources. 
Hupfeld presented the Modified document theory. According 
to his scheme there were three documents which were put 
together by a redactor. The next leading phase of the crit- 
ical movement resulted in the divisive criticism in regard 
to the laws. The same lever which was used by Darwin in 
Natural History was utilized in the Biblical field, i. e., the 
doctrine of development. The new scheme was therefore 
called the Development hypothesis. Accordingly the simp- 
lest forms of legislation are to be considered the most primi- 
tive. It is not necessary to present the views concerning the 
Book of Covenant, the Deuteronomic Code and the Priest 
Code. According to the theory, long periods must have 
elapsed and great changes must have taken place in the re- 
ligious condition of the people to account for the different 
forms of their institutions. Wellhausen advocated most 
skillfully the Development theory in his book "The History 
of Israel. ,, 

When we consider the denial of the orthodox belief in re- 
gard to the authorship of the Pentateuch and the meaning 
of all the schemes, the attacks on Daniel, etc., and the bear- 
ing of these schemes on the doctrine of plenary inspiration, 
it is evident that Higher Criticism more or less serves the 
interest of unbelief. And yet we must admit that among 
settled believers it has not undermined the old faith, and the 
Bible will not in the long run suffer from the analysis. Many 
of the critics have been sincere, and more knowledge has 
been added to the understanding of the Bible. Still we all 
realize that destructive criticism undermines the very foun- 
dations, and we must, therefore, also recognize that the mod- 
ern attacks on the Bible are the combination of all previous 
warfare and the most dangerous assault on the Christian 
religion. It is, therefore, natural that modern Apologetics 
and Apology pay special attention to the defense of the 
Bible. 

The modern apologetical works are so many that we only 



mention a few writers whose books are most accessible to 
the general student. Among such works are the following : 
Ebrard's " Apologetics." Luthardt's "Lectures." "Modern 
Doubt and Christian Belief by Christlieb. "System of Chris- 
tian Certainty" by Frank, "The Evidence of Christian Ex- 
perience" by Stearns. "'Apologetics" by Bruce. "Anti-Theis- 
Theories" by Flint. "Final Causes" by Janet, and among 
books against the modern views of the Bible having apolo- 
getic value: "Moses and His Recent Critics." essays edited 
by Chambers : "The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch" by 
Green: "Criticism Criticized" by Wace: "Daniel in the Crit- 
ics' Den" by Sir Robert Anderson: Keil in his "Introduc- 
tion to the Old Testament:" "Bible Criticism and the Aver- 
age Man" by H. A. Johnston: "The Negative Criticism and 
the Old Testament" by T. E. Schmauk; Zahn. "Introduction 
to the New Testament." Other books will be mentioned in 
appendix on collateral reading. 

§3. CAUSES OF INFIDELITY. 
1. Historical Causes. 

From the study of history it is evident that many weak- 
minded people in reading about heresies, free thought and 
anti-Christian views will be hypnotized into skepticism. 
Man is ruled by thought. A person who is not well founded 
in the truth will be overpowered by master minds. Students 
during their plastic age will imbibe heretical views from 
teachers and books. Thinking those thoughts all the time, 
the heretical ideas will become fixed ideas. When receptive 
people read the heresies related in the History of Dogmas 
and in the philosophical works, and no teacher corrects them. 
free thought finds a good soil. Many persons, nowadays, 
receive their education from novels and magazines of an 
anti-Christian character. They believe what is printed and 
never investigate, and when they hear that prominent r: 
hold views of free thought they regard it sufficient evidence. 
When we consider the modern trend in literature, it is a 



27 

wonder that so many people remain faithful. This proves 
the great power of Christianity, the influence of the Church, 
and that the Bible remains the Book of books. 

2. Ecclesiastical Causes. 

The falling away from the apostolic truth by many 
churches, the iron scholasticism and the darkness of the 
Middle Ages, the later dead orthodoxy and opposition to 
inquiry and culture, the many sects of modern times, the 
corruption among spiritual leaders and the preaching of 
man's word instead of God's word, constitute causes which 
have alienated many from the Christian church and changed 
them into skeptics and perhaps infidels. Heretical preach- 
ers make heretical hearers. 

3. The False Modern Science. 

We say the false science, because science in its real sense 
is God-sent. A superficial study of the natural sciences has 
prompted many to worship nature instead of the God of 
nature. Many have been led astray by man's power over 
nature and have forgotten that God is the light, and without 
Him there would be no power over nature and no inven- 
tions. And the modern mental science of metaphysics has 
alienated persons who have lacked a solid religious training 
and been destitute in experience, and the repeated criticism 
of old views have upset many minds and made them indiffer- 

entists. 

4. Ethical Causes. 

The perversion of the will, man's selfishness and a wicked 
life dispose men to reject the Christian ideas. The atheistic 
views, skepticism and unbelief depend often upon the feeling 
of responsibility which they could not deny, if Christianity 
was true. The votary of pleasure and a sinful life feels re- 
lieved in his conscience by the thought that there is no judg- 
ment to come. 

The ignorance of the real meaning of the Christian facts 
is also a cause of unbelief. Many deniers of the faith make 



28 

no deeper investigation, never study the Bible, and attack 
or belittle doctrines without knowledge of their contents. 
And some in reading the Scriptures find so many contra- 
dictions that they conclude that the Bible is simply human, 
Tbut they never take interest enough to ascertain that the 
contradictions are only such on the surface. Many expect 
the Bible to be verbatim an exposition of modern develop- 
ment in science, and forget that the Bible is not a natural 
science, but a Book of Revelation, written in words suitable 
for all conditions and times. Besides, our time is a period 
of rush in business, and the spare moments are given to 
amusements and light reading. Even Christians neglect the 
perusal of the whole Bible and are contented with a frag- 
mentary study of some verses, perhaps in a book of devo- 
tions. 

5. Social Causes. 

Many political systems are very favorable as a fertile soil 
for unbelief. Despotism on the one hand and communism 
on the other are feeders of infidelity. There is an undercur- 
rent of unbelief in countries like Russia and France. And 
in several republics politics have become rotten to the core. 
The modern trusts and combinations, the power of money, 
the poverty among the masses, the friction between capital 
and labor, the helplessness of the ordinary citizen over 
against corruption among the ruling elements, cause an 
anti-Christian socialism, and unbelief becomes rampant, or 
at least very common. 

These and many others are the causes, and it is important 
to undertsand them in all our attempts to effect a cure. 

Apologetics has a mission in fostering apologists of a posi- 
tive kind, even if Apologetics is powerless to heal the breach. 
And this science can be of help to persons beset by skeptic 
ideas and prevent their crystallization into settled unbelief. 
Pastors may learn how to use the science in private care of 
souls when conditions are suitable. The science and apolo- 
gies may strengthen the weak in faith and broaden the views 
of the faithful. But the work for the conversion of souls is 



29 

one of the best apologetics. The Christian experience will 
convince all, whether scientists or uneducated. The evidence 
of such an experience becomes, therefore, a leading factor in 
Apologetics. 

§4. DIVISIONS OF APOLOGETICS. 

As Apologetics may be looked upon from different view- 
points and find a basis for development, not only in the gen- 
eral facts of Christianity to prove the truth of Christianity, 
but also in individual doctrines that are like corner-stones 
and foundations of a building, it seems that the following 
divisions best will cover the scope of treatment : 

1. Theological Apologetics. 

2. Anthropological Apologetics. 

3. Soteriological Apologetics. 

4. Pneumatological Apologetics. 

5. E scatological Apologetics. 



30 



I. Theological Apologetics. 



§5. ANTECEDENT FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. 

1. Theism. 

Theism implies that the universe owes its existence to an 
absolute Being, and postulates, therefore, that there is a 
personal God, that man is a personality and that the world 
is real. 

The universality of religion is recognized. 

Practically religion is coextensive with human life-history. 
Man is religiously constituted in his personality. If there be 
no God to know, religion is a delusion and its history a his- 
tory of mental disease. Religion must have a true basis, and 
in order to be reasonable religion must rest on the knowledge 
of its object. But religion includes not only knowledge, be- 
cause will and feeling are also factors. As man is religiously 
constituted in these three faculties, he is only satisfied in the 
bond of union with an absolute power, or God. 

a. Proofs for the existence of God. 

Even if the old theistic arguments have been minimized, 
they lead in the right direction. The Ontological proof is 
expressed in a pregnant form by Augustine (Trinity VII, 
IV) : "God is more truly thought than He is described, and 
exists more truly than He is thought." The old Anselmic 
argument cannot be entirely dispensed with. The human 
mind possesses an idea of an absolutely perfect being, which 
implies necessary and actual existence. That which we feel 
must be, is superior to what is contingent. Gaunilo's objec- 
tion has little force, e. g. when he says that the idea of a 



31 

tree does not prove its actual existence. But this refers to 
contingency. On the other hand, if the idea implies a neces- 
sary thought, there must be real existence. Kant's objection 
implies also a spurious analogy. He remarks that "it is in- 
deed necessary that a triangle have three angles if it exists, 
but there is nothing in the idea of a triangle that necessitates 
its existence.' , This example is not pertinent, because the 
idea of a triangle lacks the necessity of existence. It is 
sophistical to prove by a mental construction like a triangle, 
because there is no objective substance in a mathematical 
figure. The concept of a necessary being is not the same as 
the concept of an imaginary being or thing. There is more 
need of proving the existence of anything contingent than of 
a necessary being. Cartesius based his argument on the 
very idea of God, deriving actual being directly from the 
idea of absolute perfection of being, when Anselm argued 
from the idea of a most perfect being to the necessity and 
actuality of such an existence. Cartesius evolved a profound 
truth in showing the difference between primary and second- 
are being. He emphasizes that there must be a perfect and 
necessary being, even if there may not be an imperfect and 
contingent being. He also adds an a posteriori argument to 
the ontological, namely, the innate idea of God which must 
have been placed in us by God. 

The only explanation of the necessary idea of an absolute 
God is His actual existence. What is necessary to thought 
has not only subjective, but objective validity. The forms of 
thought are the forms of things. If what is necessary in 
thought does not exist, then thought is of little value. The 
dictum of Cartesius is accepted by all, namely, "Cogito, ergo 
sum." No thinking being doubts his own existence. But the 
common experience is not only self -consciousness, but God- 
consciousness. We cannot rid our consciousness of the idea 
of God. As this experience is universal, which my own 
reason cannot make or unmake, it is grounded in a necessary 
thought of the actual existence of God. And this necessary 
thought, which is not our own creation, must be originated 



32 

from an absolute Reason, the Prius of thought and existence. 
When the idea is the necessary thought of all, this idea is 
related to an absolute Ego. the absolute self-consciousness 
which unifies and connects aD thinking. This is the proof 
of the "Rational Realism."' It is not simply an influence 
from a mere idea, because what is affirmed is not only our 
thought, but an absolute thought, and, therefore, also an 
absolute Thinker. 

This absolute Thinker, or God. must be prior to all thought 
and the maker of original thought. Pfleiderer says : "'The 
agreement, therefore, of the ideal laws of thought, which 
are not drawn from the outer world, and the real laws of 
being, which are not created by our thought, is a fact of ex- 
perience of the most incontrovertible kind; the whole cer- 
tainty of our knowledge rests on it." We all feel, more or 
less, a constant energizing in our mind which must be the 
operation :: the Universal Mind, or God. co-thinking in us. 
and, therefore, we think both ourselves and God. 

The same evidence we find in the argument drawn from 
conscience. The very word expresses the idea of ''knowing 
with." Conscience is not only our own inner moral voice, 
but we are aware of co-thinking or the inner voice of God in 
combination with our fundamental moral ideas. This is 
done in the fundamental character of conscience which is 
the common experience. If it is not clear to all. or to a 
materialist, the reason is lack of introspection. Some people 
examine only the external things, and their inner vision of 
self -introspection becomes obtuse. If we look as closely into 
our own souls as some look in microscopes and telescopes, or 
as the chemist analyzes matter, the spiritual verities would 
become just as real as matter and even more real. Kant, who 
rcted the a priori arguments for the existence of God, 
did not doubt the existence of the moral world and accepted 
the evidence of the moral world as practical proof for the 
existence of God. Frank says : "'The moral certainly is char- 
acterized in distinction from certainty of other kinds on the 
one hand by a firmness, which in the latter case has its 



33 

equal at most only as regards mathematical and logical cer- 
tainty. A man may doubt the reality of objects which he 
sees with bodily eyes and hears with physical ears, and he 
still does not on that account doubt the reality of the moral 
world, of which he is conscious. This is the abiding truth of 
the Kantian philosophy, which in the moral domain sets 
limits to the skepsis regarding the objective realities." God, 
therefore, is a postulate of the Practical Reason. Conscience 
is so rooted in our being that no man can escape the experi- 
ence of its dictates. It is the constant reminder of God. 

In connection with the rational argument the Cosmologi' 
cal argument has a great importance, and even per se. It 
is stated in the Bible in words like Hebr. 3:4: "Every house 
is builded by some man, but he who built all things is God." 

That an effect supposes a cause, is an axiom. Even the 
oldest philosophy held that the motion in the universe im- 
plies a prime mover, who is God. If physics contends that 
all atoms and molecules have motions in circular fashion and 
move and combine according to the law of attraction and re- 
pulsion, then the atoms must be either self -moved or moved 
by a prime mover. But it has never been proved that they 
are self-moved, and it has never been proved that they are 
self -created or eternal. Our common sense tells us that the 
atoms must have been created and moved by an intelligent 
Being. This Being thought and realized His thoughts. But 
He was not like an architect who materializes his thoughts 
by using the existing material. 

The supreme Being possesses the power to create. If we 
cannot explain this power, our inability does not prove the 
impossibility of such a power. It would be harder to prove 
self-creation and self-motion. We doubt if any scientist 
believes in self-creation, even if he speculates in such a di- 
rection. Creation is as self-evident as "Cogito, ergo sum." 
And if the common sense is correct in holding the universal 
conception of cause and effect, the cause is prior to the effect. 
Hume denies the idea of effects, asserting that it is only a 
consequent. The objection of Hume, however, is founded 



34 

upon sensation merely, but human reason sees not only the 
sequence, but also the manner of the sequence. We must also 
remember that in mere succession, the antecedents and con- 
sequent may change places, but in causation, the cause and 
the effect cannot be reversed. And it is also self-evident 
that everything which we must believe had an origin, must 
have had a cause. No one can deny such a principle of 
causality. If, therefore, the universe had an origin, then 
there must have been a cause. The best science holds that 
the universe had an origin. The cause of the origin must 
be an uncaused cause and, therefore, a self -existing cause. 
And as the universe contains not only matter but mind, the 
cause must be an intelligent Mind, or God, who without phys- 
ical nature could by His word produce a universe of mind 
and matter. In Hebr. 11: 3 we read: "What is seen hath 
not been made out of things which do appear." The original 
cause could not contain matter as a cause, because matter is 
changeable. Although the human mind cannot grasp the 
divine and understand creation of matter, it is rational to 
think that God is a spirit, or, more correctly explained, spirit 
is God ( Trvevfxa 6 8e6s ) . When we think of God as a cause 
in apprehending the universe as an effect we have a direct 
experience in our own consciousness of volition. When our 
mind wills, it knows itself as a cause. Therefore, we are 
able to know God as a cause. And because we have a direct 
experience of our own intellectual operations we can think 
of God as the supreme intelligence. Our own reason verifies 
not only the existence of the world, but also that the world 
is constituted by a reason similar to our own, although a 
supreme reason. 

Our knowledge of God in nature is obtained as naturally 
as our knowledge of our fellow-men. We have no immediate 
knowledge of our fellow-beings any more than of God. As 
we know God by His acts we know men by their acts. In 
reality no human being has seen another except a picture of 
the body in the optical camera. We must know men by their 
character through our intelligence, because character cannot 



35 

be heard with the ears, or looked upon with the eyes, or 
touched upon with hands. But by our intelligence we detect 
a spirit like our own, and the process by which we rise from 
the works of man to the originating mind is not more simple 
or natural than that by which we ascend from nature to the 
God of nature. But the trouble is that the common mind de- 
mands a manifestation of God in the same manner as the 
sight of a man. A little reflection should teach us that the 
revelation of God in nature is as evident and tangible as 
the appearance of a man in bodily manifestation. When 
God reveals Himself in manifold ways all around us by His 
works in nature, it is a manifestation even more real than 
simply to behold the body of a man. It is just as Paul states 
in Rom. 1 : 20 : "For the invisible things of him since the 
creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived 
through the things that are made, even his everlasting power 
and divinity." We can see God in nature, hear His voice and 
feel His touch in the natural laws. It is unreasonable to 
expect an appearance of the Triune God as an ordinary man. 
But a Christian, holding the truth of incarnation, knows 
that the second hypostasis in the Godhead has also a human 
form. The question of Philip is interesting in this connec- 
tion : "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." Then 
Jesus answered: "Have I been so long time with you, and 
dost thou not know me, Philip ? He that hath seen me hath 
seen the Father." The Father was seen in the character 
and works of Christ. Such a seeing implies far more than 
a bodily manifestation. And it is on the same principle 
we really know our fellow-men. 

The last argument which claims our attention is the Teleo- 
logical. When the previous is based on causa efficiens, this 
argument is evolved from causa finalis. The scholastics 
introduced the term. In Aristotle we find the following 
reference to it : "Another sort of cause is the end, that is to 
say, that on account of which the action is done ; for exam- 
ple, in this sense, health is the cause of walking exercise. 
Why does such a one take exercise? We say it is in order 



36 

to have good health ; and in speaking thus, we mean to name 
the cause." Aristotle also said: "Nature makes nothing in 
vain." All admit that there are certain fundamental prin- 
ciples implanted in the human mind a priori which are so 
evident that thought would be impossible without them. To 
these belong the principles of causality, substance, space, and 
time. We all recognize that there is no phenomenon without 
a cause, no mode without a substance, every body in space 
and also every event in time. Is there also a principle of 
final cause? Men of science object to final causes. The 
reason is that finality has been looked upon as an a priori 
principle like causality. But it seems that there could be 
no objection, if finality is determined as a law of nature, 
obtained by observation and induction. Bossuet presents 
the following formula: "All that shows order, proportions 
well chosen, and means fit to produce certain effects, shows 
also an express and, consequently, a formed design, a regu- 
lated intelligence, and a perfect art," All sciences prove 
that there is a law of finality in nature. The grand 
achievement of science is that it has demonstrated that 
there is order in nature. Theism maintains that this 
order universally implies mind and is an evidence of 
an intelligent cause. Astronomy discloses to us propor- 
tions so wonderful that the book of nature is like a 
living arithmetic and geometry. Biology reveals the fine 
adjustment of part to part and of part to the whole that is 
so overpowering, that the common reason cannot explain 
it except by an intelligent cause, and the higher reason of 
the learned has failed to convince to the contrary. And the 
science of chemistry instructs us as to the composition of 
the universe and proves an order of the strictest kind. The 
vast variety of visible substances are reducible to a certain 
number of constituent elements. The chemical combina- 
tions demand a correctly numbered ratio. Who made them 
thus? They could not have constituted themselves. Such 
a thing would be harder to prove than a final cause. All 
the sciences, correctly understood, prove the same fact. 



37 

There must be an intelligent cause and creator. It is self- 
evident that the creating mind cannot be a finite mind. Some 
object that the argument does not prove a creator, but only 
an artificer. If that could be proved, the architect of the 
world could not be a finite mind. It seems to be unreason- 
able to believe in an architect of the world and not in a 
creator. But in any case it would imply that the world, its 
order and adaptation do not originate mechanically, but 
has a cause which is not of the world, but independent, intel- 
ligent and supreme. But the acceptance of the theory of a 
world- former would also imply the theory of eternal matter. 
And yet the holders of the theory of a world-former admit 
that matter could less explain its existence and design than 
the belief in a first cause of supreme intelligence. If they 
accept the theory of an intelligent cause, why should there 
be two causes! The existence of an intelligent mind as a 
world-former seems to imply that he could just as well be 
the creator. The law of finality becomes then more clear. 

Kant treated this argument with great respect and does 
not deny its cogency, but limits its application. The objec- 
tions of Kant are mainly two. His first objection implies 
that the form of the world is contingent and not the matter. 
The second objection is that the argument, based upon ex- 
perience, infers only a proportionate cause. It may lead to 
the idea of a world-architect who is very wise. Janet proves 
that the objections of Kant cannot subsist together. If only 
the form is contingent and the matter itself is necessary, 
then the cause that gives the form must be necessary and 
self -existent. Janet says: "How, in short, can it be ad- 
mitted that a non-necessary cause would have the power to 
act on a necessary matter, and to give it orders ? If matter 
has not the principle of order and harmony in itself, how 
should that principle be found in an external and contingent 
cause?" The originating cause must, therefore, be a cause 
by itself and an absolute cause. And this absolute in ex- 
istence must be absolute in essence and attributes. He must 
possess a perfect wisdom which is shown in the realities of 
the ideas implied in causa finalis. 



In recent times the doctrine of evolution has been used as 
an argument against design in nature. It implies an at- 
tempt to prove that what looks like ends in nature are simply 
results. The Darwinians claim that from a few simple 
living forms, or even from a single cell, the entire vegetable 
and animal kingdoms have arisen, independently of any or- 
daining mind, by certain laws, as heredity, variability, over- 
production, natural selection, and of sexual selection. But 
without entering upon an explanation of these laws, the im- 
pression made does not invalidate the doctrine of teleology. 
If the laws may be partly accepted, they may show the way 
in which design is realized. In any case no valid proof has 
been furnished against a designing mind. This is the opin- 
ion of men who have investigated the facts. Without proof 
to the contrary we feel that all natural laws show thought 
in the world. Every mark of purpose, everything which 
shows order, plan, beauty, and rationality, prove that there 
must be a supreme mind who is the Author and Preserver. 
In our own creative world thought is antecedent to produc- 
tion. We plan and execute. And we cannot escape the 
inference that the world in its purpose, order, and finality 
is the product of a higher mind. There must be clear proofs 
to invalidate a law in the world at large which is a law of 
common experience in the relations of thought and result in 
the realm of the human mind. 

b. Theism claims that the world is real. 

To the ordinary mind it is self-evident that the world is 
real, just as every one knows that he himself is real. But 
there are philosophers who have held the opinion that the 
world is only a phenomenon. We may mention the theo- 
logical idealist Berkeley, who maintained that there is no 
substance proper except Spirit, the divine Spirit and finite 
spirits. He holds that there is no intermediate cause of 
properties, no substance in which they inhere, and as spirit 
is the only substance, there is, therefore, no essential non- 
ego relative to a personal ego, but only other egos. In all 



39 

finite cognition there are only two factors: the supreme 
mind and the mind affected by it. Phenomena are only 
operations of mind upon mind. He does not deny the reality 
of the phenomena, but these are not explained by the exist- 
ence of a material substance, but by the direct influence of 
the divine cause. When the ordinary philosophy says that 
God works through substance intermediately, Berkeley's 
philosophy says that the divine mind works through phe- 
nomena immediately without substance. But the Christian 
theistic idealist must hold that God works through objective 
substances in which attributes actually inhere. Even if we 
do not know the thing in itself, but only phenomena as they 
reveal themselves to our senses and faculties, we could not 
experience the objective substance in such a concrete man- 
ner as we do, if the world was not real. We could not reach 
a mediate knowledge of the phenomena by the cognition of 
consciousness, if there was no reality behind the phenomena. 
Even if our belief that the causes of sensation have an ob- 
jective substantiality is not an absolutely proved intellectual 
conviction, it is ethical and rests upon the veracity of God. 
Our common sense is also a gift of God. When we believe 
in a personal God, we also believe that our common sense 
cannot be mistaken in the conviction that there is a real ob- 
jective world. The question is not, if God could give us the 
impressions without the existense of matter. But there is 
no proof that He has done it. On the contrary, all the proofs 
are verifications of the actual existence of a real world. 

c. The creation of the world. 

The first external work of God is creation. Only God has 
the power to create. If we believe in a personal God, we are 
bound to accept the doctrine of creation. The universe 
could not be co-eternal with the one self-existent God. The 
eternity of His being is an axiom which we cannot explain, 
and still it is self-evident that God must be eternal, because 
even the idea "nothing" could not exist, if no one ever exist- 
ed. It is inconceivable that God had a beginning as we can- 



40 

not explain what would have been before Him. We cannot 
think of eternity as a line with a beginning, but as a circle 
without a beginning and without an end. God in His triune 
circle-existence had no experience of a beginning in Him- 
self. His only use of the beginning was in creation and its 
consequences. In His own self-existence time had no signifi- 
cance. Time has only a meaning to the self-conscious and 
self-determining creatures. The glorious irrational crea- 
tion had, and has, no idea of the meaning of creation. An 
eternal irrational universe with constant changes is unthink- 
able with the idea of a personal, immutable and eternal God 
and compels us to adopt the doctrine of creation. It is true 
that we cannot understand the relation between God's eter- 
nity and the beginning in creation, but there was a begin- 
ning, when He created. Before creation He lived in His 
timeless eternity, and there is no time to Himself but in the 
relation between Him and the creation. 

God in His ever-existence before time was blessed and in- 
dependent. He had no need of creation, but as He was love 
in His nature, it was perfectly proper and natural for Him, 
when He called into being rational creatures to form a uni- 
verse suitable for rational beings. It was not necessary for 
Him to create rational beings, but in His wonderful love He 
desired that others should exist, who experienced personal 
characteristics. It would not have been any satisfaction to 
Him, if there had been creatures without self -consciousness 
and self-determination. If God had not had personal beings 
in view, He would not have created a universe, as He Him- 
self was blessed independently of anything external to Him. 
Some of the mystic-theosophists said that God found pleas- 
ure in creating globes and throwing them like balls, but such 
ideas only belittle God. Creation stands forth wonderful, 
when we think of the climax in man, who was created in the 
image of God. When we look upon angels and men, creation 
receives its full meaning. And the meaning becomes more 
wonderful, when we consider the ages of preparation for 
the coming of man. 



41 

The study of the philosophical systems and the modern 
sciences compels us to investigate, whether there is a contra- 
diction or not between science and the Biblical doctrine. 
True science cannot contradict the Bible. There may be 
seeming, but no real contradictions. The Bible story of 
creation narrates only the outlines of the origin of the 
world. Nothing is mentioned in regard to details, there is 
no description of the unmeasured past and no attempt to 
argue, but it is taken for granted that there is a God, and 
that He created heaven and earth. 

The Bible does not explain the length and contents of the 
ages covered by the short statements in verses 1 and 2. 
There are different opinions as to what is included in the 
words "heaven and earth". It is held that "earth" is not 
only the planet earth, but the whole material system in uni- 
versum, both solar and stellar. Later the expression "earth" 
is used in different senses. Compare the 10th verse. Heaven 
in the beginning denotes the heavenly abode of angels and 
the visible throne of God. Augustine held that in the age 
prior to the six days God created ex nihilo the angelic world, 
or the heaven, and chaotic matter, or the earth. Then in six 
so called days He formed chaos into a cosmical system, solar, 
stellar and planetary. During the six days, or periods, the 
planet earth was developed as stated before the creation of 
Adam, who was created with Eve also on the sixth day. 
Then began the seventh day or the rest of God as far as crea- 
tion was concerned. 

The most well-known attacks against the Bible center in 
the narrative of creation in Genesis. Many of the young 
students are led astray by teachers who never studied the 
Bible in a scientific way, not to say that they never read the 
Scriptures, and their little reading was very superficial. 
They also forget that the Bible was not written as a textbook 
in Astronomy and Geology, but written to suit the condi- 
tions of all men. Our common sense teaches us that it would 
have been absurd, if the Bible had anticipated the different 
modern sciences. And yet we know that the Bible has antic- 



42 

ipated true science. The final outcome will be a harmonious 
solution of all the Biblical difficulties and problems. No 
scientist will ever be able to give us such brief outlines of 
creation as the Bible has given us. 

But no one conversant with natural science can, or will, 
deny that the Bible records the general order of creation as 
accepted by scientific men. When we read about chaos and 
raging waters we should not forget how Peter supports Mo- 
ses in 2 Peter 3:5: 'Tor this they wilfully forget, that there 
were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of 
water and amidst water by the word of God." And in re- 
gard to the days in Genesis we may compare 2 Peter 3:8: 
"But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with 
the Lord as one thousand years, and a thousand years as one 
day." We may be assured that Peter knew the meaning of 
the Hebrew word "yo m " which had several meanings. The 
word "y°ni" or day means daylight as over against darkness 
in Gen. 1 : 5, and also daylight and darkness together. In 
Gen. 2 : 4 day means the six days together. The day of sal- 
vation is called a day, but we all know how long the day of 
salvation has lasted. The question is not whether God was 
able to create the world in six days or not, because God is 
almighty. Some have held the opinion that all the geologi- 
cal changes occurred in the long ages from the beginning 
before what is called the first day. But this is not supported 
by the best science. Although it is a mere guess, we may 
mention that some have held that the first earth was inhabit- 
ed by one of the high order of spirits, by Lucifer and his 
followers, whose fall and punishment resulted in chaos and 
darkness. But such a view would not throw any light on the 
geological questions. Some have argued that God, dwelling 
in light, unapproachable, did not originally cause a chaos in 
darkness, but a better understanding of chaos may throw 
light on the mode of creation. It seems as if the created 
light never existed before the first day, consequently after 
the long age before the so called first day. In the age after 
the beginning, before the creation of light, the Spirit of God 



43 

was brooding (according to the Hebrew) on the waters. 
Then the implanting took place which explains the later ex- 
pression 'after their kind/ referring to the relation between 
the two acts, but man was created directly, and therefore 
there is no reference to any previous act. 

It is hardly necessary to discuss further the length of the 
days of creation, because the general opinion among mem- 
bers of the Church seems to be that the days signify 
periods. One very conclusive argument for the length of 
the days is furnished by the seventh day, which still contin- 
ues. The analogy, however, is not the length of the days, 
but it is this that God created the world in six of His days 
and then rested on the seventh, and offered man in Eden to 
enter on his rest of the eternal Sabbath. Man fell and lost 
God's Sabbath. The weekly Sabbath reminds man of his 
loss and also shows the way of restoration by the Saviour. 
Compare also Hebr. 4 : 1 — 11. But the rest of God does not 
mean inactivity, which is not necessary to explain. 

The cosmical light may have been in existence from the 
beginning, but as far as our world was concerned the crea- 
tion of light belongs to the first day. By the revelation of 
God Moses knew that the light appeared before the sun. The 
modern deeper knowledge of the relation of light and the 
sun has proved the correct presentation of the Bible. Now 
there is no difficulty to understand that the vegetable king- 
dom was created on the third day, and that there was a 
growth without a visible sun. The long-existing sun ap- 
peared on the fourth day. Formerly Moses was ridiculed, 
but now the modern geologist corroborates the Bible. Ac- 
cording to the scientist there was a long age when the prim- 
eval oceans were tepid water, and the atmosphere was 
gloaming, moist and germinating. The radiation of heat 
continued, the atmosphere became less vaporous, until the 
surrounding of the planet looked like the hollow arch of the 
sky. Although the atmosphere, the sky with its clouds, was 
completed on the second day, the further expanse and clear- 
ing had reached the sun, planets and the stellar world on the 



44 

fourth day. The luminaries were made, not created, or ap- 
pointed to their work on the fourth day. They were now 
completed and the mutual relations and regular motions of 
the heavenly bodies were now perfected. The luminaries 
were also to be for signs and seasons, and for days and years. 
We all understand, how man with civilization has depended 
on the astronomical clock of the universe. Without the 
marks of time human culture must have been different from 
what it has become. 

But the Bible is not written to suit science at a certain 
time, and, therefore, the Bible cannot contain a discussion 
on the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems of astronomy. 
The Biblical writers would have been fallible and uninspired 
if they had held or represented the physic of the day as 
absolute, as they stated that the Gospel was absolutely cor- 
rect for all time. The authors employed the geocentric 
physics in the same way as Kepler and Newton or any one 
who speaks of sunrise and sunset. But we cannot deny that 
the Bible is in some instances committed to a certain view. 
The instances are very plain when God reveals facts in crea- 
tion that would otherwise never have been known. We find 
several such disclosures in Genesis. The Biblical state- 
ments can stand the test of science, and, therefore, no one 
should be disturbed by scientific claims. 

As to the fifth and sixth creation-days true science agrees 
with Genesis as before. The order is the same. With the 
fifth day we enter on that domain of earth's history which 
has been very fully touched upon by geology. The Bible has 
not suffered by the comparisons. It is self-evident that the 
Bible only mentions the leading facts. Both in the Biblical 
and scientific records the creation of the first animals and 
the mammalia forms a very distinct period. Some authori- 
ties hold that probably the close of the fifth day corresponds 
with that of the Mesozoic or secondary period. The sixth 
day corresponds with the Tertiary era of the geologists. 

It is worthy of special notice, that man was created on the 
same day as the mammalia. If the creation-narrative had 



45 

been a fiction, the author would very likely have assigned 
man a separate day. But Moses was a man of truth, who 
told the facts as shown to him. Modern geology has vindi- 
cated Moses by its statements concerning the intimate con- 
nection of the human with the tertiary period. Geology and 
the Biblical Genesis agree in placing the creation of man at 
the close of the period. Man was the climax of creation. 

When we review the history of creation and the scientific 
investigations, we realize how little we know, but we should 
not stumble in our faith on some rock of doubt, because the 
human mind cannot grasp the depth of the Absolute. We 
enjoy life and light, but there is no scientist who can explain 
these gifts. There have been many ideas in regard to the 
mode of creation, but there is no solution except God would 
reveal it. Many attempts have been made to explain crea- 
tion ex nihilo ; the expression is not verbally correct, but this 
is the underlying idea. The analogies hold partly good. If 
one thought is connected with and dependent on another, 
yet one thought is not made out of another thought and a 
volition is not made out of another volition. But though the 
reason originates thoughts from nothing and the will voli- 
tions, the thoughts and volitions are not substances. There 
the analogy is lacking. No human being can materialize 
his mind pictures without external means. But having the 
means at hand, mighty things are accomplished. Thought 
is the creative force behind every action, and, therefore, 
nothing has ever been that was not first created by thought. 
Some one has said that architecture is the thought of man 
congealed in stone and wood. The Brooklyn bridge and 
great cathedrals were first in the mind of the architects. 
When God has given the means, the human understanding 
may become a creator in a secondary sense. The human in- 
ventions, depending upon God's illumination, prove the rich- 
ness of nature as endowed by the Creator. In these times 
we have all kinds of instruments as the telephone, the dif- 
ferent graphophones, the radium, the wireless telegraph, 
which upset old theories. Knowledge has increased invisible 



-16 

means, but only God can explain what they are. Think of 
the various lights and of the invisible light photographing 
even through metallic plates ! Now we hear much of electron 
and how its matter can increase in an electron without being 
itself enlarged. But who is able to explain what electricity 
is? 

But soon the scientists may have reached other results 
than now expressed by words like electrons and the different 
lights, and we are at a loss to know what comes next. Knowl- 
edge may be increased, but it is not necessary to solve all 
problems of creation in order to become a believer. The 
brain of man is too small to contain the wisdom of the Al- 
mighty. Our earth is a small globe in the great universe. 
What are we but atoms on a grain of sand! But man is 
from another viewpoint great, and God has spoken to man. 
The word of God has revealed some of the great facts of 
creation. What would we know in regard to certainties in 
creation without the word of God ! 

It is very interesting to read the beginning of Genesis and 
then read the beginning of the Gospel of St. John. Some 
philosophers have called God the universal and absolute 
thought. St. John speaks of the expression of God as the 
Word, just as thoughts are expressed in words. John says 
not only that the Word was with God, but he adds: "The 
Word was God." According to St. John the Word was the 
Son of God, but was of the same essence as the Father and 
the Spirit, and He was God as the essence is one. Although 
the Triune is the Creator in a certain sense, and the Father 
is called the Creator of heaven and earth, John says: "All 
things were made through Him." Without explaining the 
doctrine of the Trinity according to Dogmatics, we only de- 
sire to show the revelation of God in creation, how He real- 
ized or materialized His thoughts which began at the mo- 
ment described as "in the beginning." When God in the 
beginning created heaven and earth, it seems that there must 
have been some light in heaven, because it is only said of 
what is called earth: "And the earth was waste and void, 



47 

and darkness was upon the face of the deep." God Himself 
is light and does not depend upon any created light. But 
created beings like angels must have some kind of light in 
their heavenly home or glorious state, and the created light 
on the first day may not have been the same kind as the 
celestial. The light of the first day is also different from the 
light of the suns, moons and starry worlds. Then we must 
consider the significance of air and other means in visibility. 
The rays of the sun are sun-rays just the same, but to be 
interpreted there must be a medium and the sense of vision. 
In the heavenly world God has other means to interpret light 
and also in starry worlds lacking our mediums. 

If we consider the different modes of light, it is easier to 
understand the creation of light by the intensive thought of 
the almighty God. The activity of God's thought has the 
power to make the intensive light-thought material. What 
the scientists call ether must have been created at the same 
time. It is also wonderful to study what is known as elect- 
rons, kathode rays, X-rays and other radiations to illustrate 
the attennuated thinness of light. We are apt to look upon 
the material as more real than the spiritual, but God and the 
spiritual world must be more real than temporal conditions 
and the material world. The Creator must be more real 
than the created. The light, in which God dwells, is more 
wonderful than the created light. When we know the 
thought-power of man in producing, why should we doubt 
the almighty thought-power of God in creating light and the 
consequences? It is easier to believe in creation by the 
power of an absolute person, who must be almighty, than to 
understand the existence of an eternal world which would 
exclude creation. If we study light and the starry worlds 
shedding light, it will assist us in understanding the neces- 
sity of creation and, therefore, of a Creator. We find a 
system and an order which could not exist if there was not 
a universal mind or a personal God, not to speak of all other 
proofs. Think of the vastness of the universe, and yet there 
is no limit to space! But there is a limit to the universe. 



48 

Scientists hold that the universe is round. If it is round, it 
must have a limit, because if it filled all space, it would have 
no shape, as infinity has no shape. We must consider how 
many starry worlds are so far away that their light will 
require millions and millions of years to reach us. And if 
the universe is eternal, then all light has reached us, and no 
new creations can be expected. 

Our own solar universe is immense, but what shall we say 
about other distances? If we could travel about 189,000 
miles a second, we would reach the solar system of Alpha 
Centauri in four years. But this is only the beginning of 
the distances in space, and on account of distances, the con- 
stellations look entirely different if we could get there. But 
we find all over an evident Rulership. 

If we should study as much as we could only about light, 
we would not be able to say what light is. There is no other 
answer but the Biblical, that God Himself is the light, not 
only in spiritual life, but the origin of light in every sense, 
We have already referred to St. John in his testimony: 
"There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every 
man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the 
world was made by Him." If He made the world, He also 
made the light, the light spiritually, intellectually and phys- 
ically. When we speak of the logos as the light of the world, 
it is not only religious illumination, because we depend upon 
the divine light in all our relations, just as we live in Him, 
and move, and have our being. God is called the Father of 
lights (James 1: 17). 

All fairminded investigators must admit that the Biblical 
narrative has not been disproved, and all cultured people 
should reject the old shelf -worn objections, especially when 
we consider how true science supports views which are out- 
lined in the Bible. 

d. Classification of Theism. 

1) Intuitive Theism. — By this is meant that religious 
belief comes by intuition or an immediate apprehension of a 



49 

thing in itself or a simple outlooking of the mind beyond 
phenomena. In looking at phenomena, man has a power of 
vision, which discloses realities behind the things which 
appear. Behind finites is seen the Infinite, behind the powers 
of nature a will, behind goodness perfection and God is di- 
rectly felt. 

2) Demonstrative Theism. — This method proceeds from 
data, by means of certain principles, to conclusions, using 
the a posteriori method, moving from the events to the basis 
upon which they depend. It is the principle of efficient and 
final causes, corresponding to the Cosmological and Teleo- 
logical proofs for the existence of God. 

3) Transcendental Theism. — The kernel of this theory 
is that necessary thought is constructive of intelligent ex- 
perience, and that the idea which it presents is real. The 
three leading ideas are the soul which perceives, the world 
perceived, and God as the union of subject and object. The 
idea of God is necessary to explain self and the world. With- 
out the thought of God experience becomes a chaos. 

The Intuitionalist sees God directly, the Cosmologist works 
upward from the finite world, and the Transcendentalist sets 
God as necessary to explain the world as He is supreme in 
correlation with all that depends upon Him. Transcen- 
dentalism follows the plan of the ontological method of pro- 
cedure by supplying the a priori basis. 

4) Ethical Theism. — This mode lays the stress upon the 
sense of reality in regard to the obligation to do right. This 
implies the voice of God in conscience. 

5) Social Theism. — According to this scheme of explana- 
tion the subject of religion is mankind collectively. It cor- 
responds, therefore, to the argument e consensu gentium or 
the historical proof for the existence of God. 

6) Personal Theism. — This scheme does not base belief 
upon any single faculty of the soul or reason, feeling or will, 
but upon the whole living personality. It is an evolution of 
the idea of God, or to the idea of God by the sum total of 
experience. 



50 

7) Mystical Theism. — This method bases religious belief 
upon a special capacity of our nature. Analysis of religious 
faith is rejected, because divine things belong to a nature of 
their own. Our spiritual nature reaches beyond what is 
sensuous, depending upon the affinity of our soul and God. 

e. Anti-theistic Theories. 

1) Atheism. — Atheism is the rejection of belief in God. 
It teaches either that there is no God, or that is is impossible 
for man to know that there is a God. But we should observe 
that it is very doubtful that any man is really certain that 
there is no God. Still many lay claim to such a position. 

Further, atheists only refute the arguments for the being 
or existence of God, but they have never proved this non- 
existence. It is not easy to prove a negative. Atheism 
does not satisfy the intellect, the heart and the question of 
morality. Atheism is a destructive principle and under- 
mines the happiness and blessedness of man. 

2) Materialism. — In our day there is no anti-theism as 
formidable as materialism. Besides the historic develop- 
ment of materialism from the time of Democritus one of 
the chief reasons for its prevalence has been the brilliant 
progress of the biological sciences. The doctrine of evolu- 
tion has also contributed in a large degree to the spreading 
of the materialistic theories. 

Materialism claims to satisfy the legitimate demands of 
the reason for unity. It is true that reason, in quest for 
an ultimate explanation of things, demands unity. But is 
Materialism Monism, or is matter one? No, Materialism 
is Multitudinism. Even if matter is reducible to a single 
constituent, it would only prove matter to be of one kind. 
A pure homogeneous physical element is an aggregate of 
parts. Besides, force is always combined with matter. 
Some materialists, therefore, represent matter and force 
as coordinate. But what becomes then of the unity? It 
becomes a duality. If we want unity, we must seek it in 
the immaterial cause, — the Absolute Mind. 



51 

The materialist claims further that there is a matter 
which precedes every form of mind, but he has not proved 
it. According to the materialist, matter is independent of 
thought. But the matter by which he pretends to explain 
intelligence presupposes intelligence. 

Materialism affirms that matter is eternal, but does not 
prove it. If matter is not eternal, it is originated. 

Materialism does not explain the order, laws and har- 
mony in nature. It is unreasonable to think that atoms, 
jostling together at random and uncorrelated by intelligence 
with an end in view, should produce these things. 

Materialism cannot explain life. So far there is not the 
least proof to warrant the belief that life has originated 
from mere matter. "Omne vivum ex vivo" is a natural 
law which has no exceptions. 

Further, materialism cannot verify that molecular 
changes will produce sensation, perception, memory, etc. 

Our moral consciousness disproves the materialistic 
doctrines. 

Materialism does not provide for our spiritual aspira- 
tions. 

3) Pantheism. — Pantheism is a system which requires 
all finite things as modifications of one eternal and infinite 
substance. This substance it calls God. Pantheism ex- 
cludes freedom and implies determinism. 

Pantheism is superior to Atheism because the latter gives 
no answer to our religious cravings. 

Pantheism has a superiority to every system which leads 
men to think of Creation as independent of a Creator, but 
it does not supply the satisfactory explanation which we 
receive in Theism. 

Pantheism also ministers somewhat to devout emotion, 
by centering all in one Absolute Substance, but does not 
give the satisfaction which Theism presents. In denying 
the personality of God, Pantheism refuses to the religious 
affections an appropriate object. 

Pantheism is not only an inadequate religion but strives 



52 

to set aside the very postulates of morality. And there is 
nothing in Pantheism which Theism does not contain in 
the true sense. 

4) Positivism. — According to this system, we know noth- 
ing except physical phenomena. The senses are the sources 
of all thinking. Both efficient and final causes are denied. 

Materialism supposes matter to be more than a phe- 
nomenon. It supposes it to be a substance and a cause. 
If we only know phenomena we cannot affirm that the 
mental can be resolved into the physical. And we cannot 
reduce all phenomena to material phenomena, because we 
have an immediate knowledge of thinking, feeling, and 
willing. There is no testimony so strong as the direct im- 
mediate testimony of consciousness. Mental states may 
have physical conditions and antecedents, but cannot be 
resolved into physical. 

The Positivist says that we cannot see causes. Our senses 
only reveal antecedents and consequences, but not causes 
and effects. But this is only superficial reasoning and can- 
not be proved. 

In reality Positivism excludes religion, and the religion 
which some Positivists present is only the "Synthetic ideali- 
zation of our existence." The Positivist worships humanity, 
but not in the ordinary sense. It is not the human nature 
nor the human race, but it is an organism of which in- 
dividuals and generations are parts, and yet multitudes of 
people are excluded and some animals are included. It 
proves what a poor substitute Positivism is for Christianity. 
And what does the obscure phrase, the "Synthetic idealiza- 
tion of our existence," mean? According to Mr. Mill it is 
a conviction claiming authority over the whole of human 
life and to which everything is subordinate. And there must 
be a sentiment powerful enough to sway human nature. A 
person has, therefore, religion, if he has an idea, controlling 
all his sentiments, which prescribes to him a rule of life. But 
religion is not a synthesis in the sense of Comte and Mill, 
and idealization does only create poetical ideals according 



53 

to such a scheme. It would be like the religion of Lange, 
the author of the "History of Materialism,' , a poetic religion 
according to which the spirit of man can only find peace by 
creating a home for itself in the ideal world. 

5) Secularism. — The term was first used in 1852 by 
Holyoake. His most interesting work is "The Trial of 
Theism." 

Among the principles of Secularism may be mentioned: 
That precedence should be given to the duties of this life, 
because this life is a certainty and for the future life there 
is only testimony, conjecture and probability. The message 
of Secularism is: "Think much about this world and less 
of God." But only Atheists and hardened men will accept 
such a doctrine. It is irrational because this life is very 
uncertain. 

Another principle is the following: Science is the provi- 
dence of man, and that absolute spiritual dependency may 
involve material destruction. Only science and the laws 
of nature should direct man's life. Prayer is useless and 
is never answered. Such an exclusive position refutes itself. 

A third principle is that morality and not religion is 
necessary. But such morality is very defective if there is 
a God. And where will the power of morality be found, 
the impelling motive, if there is no religion? Religion 
leaves all secular motives to morality intact, while it adds 
spiritual motives of vast efficacy. Utilitarianism is, of 
course, in itself neither Atheistic or un-Christian, but if 
there be a God and future life, Utilitarianism cannot afford 
to omit them from its calculations. 

2. Philosophical Facts as Fundamental. 
a. Philosophy of Religion. 

The Philosophy of Religion starts with man as a voyager 
between life and death and finds him in all of his relations 
more or less religiously bent. If Anthropology depicts man 
in his savage state or in his most cultured condition, the 
religious trait always appears in some kind of worship. The 



54 

study of religion and religions proves that man recognizes 
the supernatural. The investigation of all the philosophical 
problems of religion substantiates the universal fact of 
religion. And one of the proofs of its necessity is the spon- 
taneity of its existence. It comes into being of itself, with- 
out any man willing it, or any man making it, and it con- 
tinues irrespective of all opposition. A comparison of all 
the religions proves plainly that Christianity is the best and 
final religion, containing in a better form all that is good 
in all the other religions. 

b. Philosophy of History. 

Philosophy of Religion implies that there is a Philosophy 
of History. Without spirit there would be no History. 
What would nature be without a mind interpreting? Man 
is at once the interpreter and the interpretation of nature. 
We think here of man, not as an individual, but as a race. 
And, therefore, mind here refers to the mind of the generic 
man. Therefore, there must be a history of the develop- 
ment of mind. The science of nature without the science 
of History is an incomplete fragment. 

The experience of the individual has a counterpart in 
the life of the race. The human individual is no atom, 
without a name and without a history. He begins to be 
before he is born, then he is born into a family, and in a 
certain sense he is the sum of his ancestors. Man must 
be conceived in all his families, races, states and times, as 
even more a unity than the nature which unfolded him. 

We find the idea of unity and order in History. As far 
as man is concerned, it is not only a unity of origin but 
of source, the cognate relation of all to the one Creator,, 
who is the Father of all. 

The order of nature is a rigid uniformity, but the order 
of History is veiled in an infinite variety. The factors of 
order in History must be stated in the terms of the mind 
and not matter. Man is the vehicle of order. And man 
influences man. Moral forces are both cumulative and 



55 

regulative. The visible environment of man is two-fold: 
nature and moral society, but the invisible environment is 
the Divine Spirit. God is not only in nature but in History. 
The course of human society has been to create an order 
higher than the natural. By what power can this be done ? 
History and modern research have proved that this cannot 
be accomplished except by Religion. And History bears 
witness that the Christian Religion is the supreme factor. 

c. Philosophy of Christianity. 

If the wisdom of Christianity is compared with Philoso- 
phy in general, it will be very evident that Christianity as a 
system of truth is higher than any scheme of Philosophy, 
and that no wisdom of the world is comparable with the 
wisdom of the Christian religion. The same problems are 
discussed more or less in Philosophy and Christian Theology, 
and even a superficial comparison proves to any reasonable 
man the superiority of the Christian solution of the prob- 
lems of life. Christianity is the absolute religion and God's 
final word to man. 

3. Apocalyptical Facts. 

By the supernatural is meant what is above and before 
nature, the absolute and infinite, what is above causes and 
effects in nature and what is the first cause of all. 

The real and necessary being of the supernatural is 
proved by the necessity of religion, by the necessity of the 
idea of the supernatural and by the universal testimony. 
There can be no religion without the underlying sense of 
the reality of the superhuman and supersensible. If this 
is taken away, then all religion vanishes. The history of 
the world becomes a vain show without moral end, if the 
supernatural is eliminated. 

And in regard to the thought of the supernatural, it is 
evident that all minds believe in the reality of the Absolute 
Being. Otherwise the alternative is Nihilism in respect 



56 

to being, Nescience in respect to knowledge, and Pessimism 
in respect to the future. 

The reality of the supernatural element is confirmed by 
the history of thought. This statement is true even in 
respect to the most modern schools of speculation. 

If there be a God and supernatural world, it is reason- 
able that it must be manifested. The proofs for the exist- 
ence of God are many. And if God exists, it would be 
irrational to say that He cannot reveal Himself. The super- 
natural is the source of the natural, and the natural is in 
a certain sense the manifestation of the supernatural. 

But a special revelation of God was necessary. And 
there are ample testimonies both of a personal and written 
revelation. The Christian religion has divine authority. 
It does not merely exist in history and it is not merely 
handed down by credible witnesses, but is recorded in in- 
spired books, the Holy Scriptures. The personal Word of 
God, the Logos, was incarnated and became the center of 
the old and new revelation. Therefore, it is important 
to prove the divine authority of the Scriptures, especially 
in our day when the principal attack against Christianity 
concerns the Biblical canon and inspiration. If the Bible 
is the Word of God, then the facts of Theological Apologetics 
are proved and all the consequences in the division. 

§6. THE CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE BIBLE AS 
FUNDAMENTAL. 

1. The Genuineness and Credibility of the Books 
Generally Considered. 

a. The determination as to the Canon. 

What books can be proved to have been received by the 
Jews and Christians as canonical ? The testimony of Christ 
and the apostles is the strongest proof. This covers the Old 
Testament canon. Further proofs are the following : 

There are exceptionable witnesses, who possessed both 
the means of knowing and were willing to communicate the 



57 

truth, and there was not the least reason why they should 
have forged the books of the Old Testament. 

The true knowledge of the origin of these books could 
not be easily corrupted or lost, because there was a special 
tribe among the Jews set apart to watch over the preserva- 
tion of these documents. 

The Septuagint, the Greek version, which dates back 
nearly 300 years before the Christian era, is also a strong 
proof for the genuineness of the Old Testament. 

Great weight has also the testimony of Philo and Jo- 
sephus, especially the latter, who distinctly testifies to the 
genuineness of the books of the Old Testament. 

The evidence arising from language, style, manner of 
writing and the circumstantiality of the narrations is a 
decisive and incontestible argument for their genuineness. 

All the New Testament books which have Apostolical 
authority are canonical. The evidence is very strong as 
to all the main portions, and satisfactory in regard to the 
antilegomena. And even if we can not decide who is the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the contents prove 
beyond doubt the Apostolic authority. 

Great care was used by the early Church in sifting evi- 
dence and receiving documents. 

If the books of the New Testament had been forged, the 
Jews would have detected it. And the inhabitants of Pale- 
stine would not have received the Gospels, if they had not 
had sufficient evidence that Jesus Christ had really ap- 
peared among them and performed the miracles ascribed 
to Him. The churches to whom Paul wrote would not have 
received the Epistles of Paul as genuine, if he had not 
preached among them. 

The books of the New Testament are quoted by many 
writers and by adversaries of the Christian religion, who 
may be traced back in succession from the present to the 
Apostolic age. All the early testimonies prove the genuine- 
ness of the books. From the fourth century we have six 
lists of the canon, corresponding exactly with the number of 
books in our canon. 



58 

The internal testimony from the character of the writers, 
their language, style and narration also prove the genuine- 
ness of the books. 

b. The uncorrupted preservation of the books. 

There is no proof or any vestige of proof to show that the 
books have been materially altered. Before Christ no man 
or number of men could have done it without being exposed. 
After Christ the Old Testament could not be mutilated, be- 
cause both Jews and Christians held the Scriptures in high 
esteem. And the Jews and Christians were a mutual guard 
upon each other. The agreement of all the manuscripts of 
the Old Testament is a clear proof of their uncorrupted pre- 
servation. 

Neither could the New Testament books be materially 
mutilated, altered or corrupted. They could not be cor- 
rupted before the death of the authors, and before the death 
of the authors the books were distributed all over and copies 
rapidly made. The Christian people in different parts of 
the Roman empire would not have consented to any corrup- 
tion, and if any mutilation had been attempted there should 
be some trace of it in history. 

No alterations could be made soon after the death of the 
authors, because the Churches had the original manuscript, 
and if any attempt had been made, the Jews and heathen 
would have exposed it in their attack upon Christianity. 

The uncorrupted preservation is also proved from the 
main and nearly complete agreement of the manuscripts, 
because the different readings can be satisfactorily ex- 
plained and do not touch upon the material contents. 

The testimony of the versions of the first three centuries 
also proves the integrity of the books. 

c. The credibility of the books. 

The writers of the books had a perfect knowledge of the 
subjects related, their moral character was never impeached 
by their opponents, and they were never proved to be falsi- 
fiers. 



59 

The Apostles could not be deceived in the facts which 
they recorded, and they were competent witnesses of good 
understanding and character. The Scriptures prove that 
they were not enthusiasts or fanatics. But an analysis 
of their character proves their integrity and sincerity. 
They appealed themselves to notorious proofs and suffered 
everything for the truth of their narrations. 

2. General Remarks on the Inspiration of the 

Scriptures. 

As the writers of the Bible profess to have their doctrine 
from God, it could not be the invention of men. It could 
not have been the contrivance of wicked men, because then 
they would have made the Bible favorable to themselves. 

Neither could the Bible be an invention of good men, 
because the supposition would involve them in a guilt in- 
consistent with their character. If the authors had claimed 
to be good men and told a falsehood in regard to the origin 
of their doctrines, they would have been the grossest im- 
posters in the world. 

Neither could the authors be madmen, because the con- 
tents of the Bible testify to the greatest wisdom, and the 
authors were many, living at different times, and could not 
all be monomaniacs on such topics and present such har- 
monious doctrines. 

The character of the authors proves, therefore, the in- 
spiration of the books. 

Among the arguments for the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures is the evidence of the fulfilment of prophecy a very 
strong one. Another argument of great weight is the im- 
port of the Biblical doctrines and their effect upon man. 

The commonly accepted proofs for the inspiration of 
the Bible are very reasonable, convincing and incontestable. 

The commonly accepted internal evidences are very con- 
vincing, such as the following : The sublime doctrines, the 
moral precepts, the harmony existing between every part, 
the effects of the Word of God in promoting the happiness 



60 

and blessedness of man and the peculiar advantages pos- 
sessed by the Christian revelation. 

Many objections have been made by infidels, but they 
may be satisfactorily answered, and even if there should be 
objections that are not met in such a way as to satisfy 
everybody, there is no just cause to reject the Scriptures, 
because Biblical problems are solved continually by investi- 
gation, research and correct application of hermeneutical 
principles. 

One objection, which is very common, refers to the seem- 
ing contradiction in the Bible, but many contradictions have 
been harmonized, and by modern research satisfactory ex- 
planations are constantly found. If not all contradictions 
will be solved in our time, it is reasonable to expect that 
further light in the future will harmonize all such passages, 
because lately many so-called contradictory passages have 
become clear that could not be explained a hundred years 
ago. 

§7. THE BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM*. 

The orthodox Christian Church holds that the canonical 
books of the Bible in their original version were inspired 
by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is, therefore, the Word of 
God. The generally accepted theory of inspiration is the 
so-called dynamic theory which differs from the scholastic 
mechanical in giving due prominence to the human factor. 
But the dynamic theory does not prohibit the acceptance of 
verbal inspiration of the original text. The dynamic theory, 
by holding the concurrence of the divine and human factors, 
explains best the orthodox view of plenary inspiration. It 
lies within the province of Dogmatics to explain the theory. 
But Christian Apologetics and Apology must defend the 
divine character of the Bible and the genuineness of the 
canonical books. 

As it is fundamental to Christianity that the Bible con- 
tains both revealed and inspired matter, the inquiry as to 



61 

the facts is legitimate, and the defense of the Christian 
standpoint becomes necessary when the accepted faith of 
the Christian is assailed. And although the faith does not 
depend upon the defense, it is reasonable that such a defense 
is made. 

The animus of the destructive critics is self-evident, but 
there are also higher critics of a conservative type. Even 
well grounded Christians, therefore, take an interest in the 
subject of criticism. The Christian experience safeguards 
a true Christian, but there is no special revelation in regard 
to critical questions. 

What true light modern criticism may throw upon the 
structure of the Bible, the future will reveal. But it is plain 
to all Christians that, at present, modern criticism moves 
in a labyrinth of hypotheses, and that there is very little 
agreement among the critics. 

1. The Modern Criticism and Inspiration. 

The destructive critics reject the plenary inspiration, just 
as they deny divine revelation in the proper sense. Other 
critics accept the theory of a partial inspiration. The more 
conservative of this school even admit the necessity of verbal 
inspiration of the recognized inspired parts. But most 
critics look upon the Bible as a collection of religious litera- 
ture. 

The apologetic activity against the higher critics implies, 
therefore, the use of the ordinary proofs for the possibility, 
necessity and reality of a divine revelation. But the un- 
believing critics will not listen to these arguments as long 
as their will is set against God. The reason for unbelief 
is moral. Otherwise they would be willing to test the truth 
of divine revelation in the school of experience and test 
the facts by experiments. But during this modern clamor 
of criticism we should always remember that there are 
thousands of learned scholars who accept the arguments 
for a divine revelation. The great body of the Christian 
Church recognizes the historicity of the divine revelation 
in Christ and the Bible. 



62 

And it is reasonable to assume that, if a divine written 
revelation is a fact, such a revelation must be safeguarded 
by God Himself in such a manner as inspiration implies. 
It is improbable that God would reveal doctrines concerning 
salvation and do nothing to secure an accurate statement of 
the same. Such doctrines as the Trinity, incarnation, vi- 
carious atonement, justification by faith and their antece- 
dents and consequences could never originate in the human 
mind by themselves and could not have been stated in human 
words except by a divine influence. 

And if inspiration is accepted in part only, it would be 
an arduous task to demonstrate what parts and words are 
inspired. It is harder to maintain the theory of partial 
inspiration than the theory of plenary inspiration. If in- 
spiration is limited, we would need a special revelation to 
point out the inspired passages. No one would trust the 
weak mind of man to make the selection. Then we would 
be in the same trouble as in regard to the many theories of 
the higher critics. The plenary inspiration is therefore a 
necessity, if we shall possess an unerring guidance to eternal 
life. It is reasonable to believe that God has given man a 
sure guidance to attain eternal life. And there is no book 
in the world which answers the religious questions of man 
as the Bible. 

If we are studying the Bible to attain eternal life, the con- 
viction will grow naturally in the direction that we must 
hold the theory of plenary inspiration. We will find that 
the leading doctrines as to their contents depend upon the 
meaning of the words used. By necessity we then realize 
that there must have been a divine concurrence with the 
human mind in selecting the proper words. And it would 
be psychologically impossible that the ideas could be inspired 
without words or form. There is no idea without form. We 
must, therefore, explain the process as a concurrence of the 
divine and human spirit in the very act of creating the 
thoughts. There was no dictation in the inspiration, but 
the revealed facts would imply a direct intuition. But even 



63 

in a case when there would be a mode analogous to dicta- 
tion, the production of the revelation in the writing would 
require the concurrence of inspiration. The Bible contains 
revealed facts and inspired matter, but both were produced 
in the written form by the act of inspiration. And we should 
always keep in mind the bearing of the human factor which 
explains the individuality and style of the writing. By the 
influence of the Holy Spirit each writer presented such his- 
torical matter as was necessary for the connection of facts 
and to serve the special object of each book. And when 
inspired writers related the same events, we should expect 
that there would be diiferent viewpoints. Not all of them 
would describe every detail. But by comparative study we 
may harmonize matters, and many seeming contradictions 
will disappear. The Biblical books constitute a unity, and 
the Bible, therefore, is self-rectifying. The evangelists, 
e. g., were not aware of any real discrepancy in relating 
only parts of an event, and there was no attempt to har- 
monize by a verbal conformity. This also proves their 
truthfulness and freedom from deceit, because deceivers 
would have been careful to evade all seeming contradictions. 
If critics would treat Biblical literature as reasonably as 
other literature, there would be no radical criticism. The 
destructive higher criticism proves its own character and 
that the animus is not exclusively scientific. 

2. Modern Criticism in Relation to the Historicity of 
the Books and Related Questions. 

In the foregoing subdivision we called attention to higher 
criticism and inspiration, because the real cause of radical 
higher criticism is disbelief in supernaturalism and divine 
inspiration. If there was no rejection of revelation and 
plenary inspiration, there would be no destructive criticism, 
but only the legitimate, which is treated in Biblical Intro- 
duction and Isagogics. The Church has never opposed tex- 
tual criticism and the legitimate inquiry into the questions 
of canonicity, genuineness and credibility of the books. But 



64 

the radical criticism treats the Bible in such a manner as no 
other literature has ever been treated. If all past history 
and classical literature should be handled in the same man- 
ner, there would be far less certainty as to authenticity and 
accepted facts in our general knowledge than in the Biblical 
field. 

From the point of view of the apologist it is evident that 
no result can be accepted except on absolute proof. If we 
accept the testimony of history, it seems that the verifica- 
tion of the early witnesses is more reliable than the hypo- 
theses of modern critics. This fact is more convincing, if 
the critics are deists, rationalists and pantheists, because 
then they are not impartial. The earlier witnesses, living 
at the time of the composition era or near that time, had 
better facilities to investigate. The primitive church was 
better qualified to investigate than the modern church. There 
were more of documentary evidence and personal testimony 
in the first period than in the 19th century. An Alexandrian 
scholar of the early times had more data in regard to the 
Platonic dialogues than any philologist of the present time. 
From an historical point of view the testimony of the early 
Church, therefore, is more reliable than the subjective 
opinions of critics in our century in regard to the Bible. 
The authorship of the Biblical books must be settled chiefly 
by historical testimony. And this testimony confirms the 
conservative views. 

1) Some considerations in regard to the Old Testament. 

Are J and E two different documents or the same? The 
only reason for the distinction is the difference of usage in 
the names Jehovah and Elohim. There is no absolute proof 
that E ever existed as a continuous independent document. 
The broken, intermittent character excites doubts even in 
Wellhausen. The fact is that no absolute rule in regard to 
the use of the names can be laid down. Elohim is sometimes 
found in J passages. In Gen. Ill the name of Jehovah is 
not put in the mouth of the serpent, but instead Elohim. In 
the narrative of Hagar's flight (J), the words are: "Thou, 



65 

Elohim, seest me." Compare also the wrestling at Peniel, 
Gen. XXXII (J), where Elohim occurs in vv. 28, 29. In 
Gen. XXVIII: 17—22 (E) Jacob says: "Then shall Jehovah 
be my God." To show the uncertainty of the criteria we 
may mention that Dr. Driver says that in Gen. XII : 10 — 20 
the form Jehovah is uniformly used, but it is only employed 
once (v. 17). And it is employed only once in the Elohistic 
narrative Gen. XX : 18. The critics solve their difficulty by 
their invented "redactor," but why should he interpolate 
in his E document a name out of harmony with his context? 

There are also examples of the use of Jehovah by E. Com- 
pare Gen. XXII: 1 — 14, where Jehovah occurs in verses 11 
and 14. Also in Gen. XXVIII : 17 — 22, where Jacob says : 
"Then Jehovah shall be my God." It should also be noted 
that isolated Elohistic sections occur, as in Ex. XIII: 17 — 
19. This is an argument against those who contend that in 
the case of E the distinction of divine names ceases with 
the revelation in Ex. III. It is not a distinction between 
E and J that one only knows of one name. Both describe 
nearly in the same terms the commission to Moses. Comp. 
Ex. Ill : 15 and 16. And while E records the words : "I am 
that I am" (v. 14), it is not E, but P, who in Ex. VI: 3 
declares: "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto 
Jacob, as El-Shaddai, but by my name Jehovah I was not 
known to them." It is, therefore, evident that the supposed 
E regarded the revelation to Moses in the same light as the 
supposed J. The words of the supposed P do not prove that 
the name of Jehovah was not known before, but that God, 
who earlier had especially proved Himself to be El-Shaddai, 
would now stand forth, in the deliverance of Israel, as 
Jehovah, the ever abiding One. There may have been some 
reason why the author used different names, but it does not 
prove different authorship. 

The two passages Gen. XXII: 1 — 19 (the sacrifice of 
Isaac) and Gen. XXVIII: 10—22 (Jacob at Bethel) prove 
the impossibility of the partition-hypothesis. Each is a 
single story which needs both parts (ascribed to E and J) 



66 

to make it complete. The unity is destroyed by partition. 
In Gen. XXII : 1 — 14 is attributed to E, 15 — 18 to J, verse 
19 is given to E, but then there is no completeness. The 
divisions also fail in Gen. XXVIII. It would be a kind of 
patchwork which is incredible. Many more examples could 
be given, but any one interested can study monographs on 
the subject. 

In regard to Deuteronomy the critics have no convincing 
proofs that the book was written at the time of Josiah. On 
the very face of it this book bears the impress of Mosaic 
authorship and unity. The traces of editorial redaction in 
regard to the death of Moses, and perhaps in a few other 
places, do not invalidate the unity of the book in thought 
and stjde. The finding of the "book of the law" of Moses 
in the eighteenth year of Josiah does not prove, what the 
critics claim, that the book was composed shortly before and 
placed in the sanctuary with a fraudulent purpose. The 
narrative gives to every honest reader the impression that 
an old lost book was found, and that this book was the "book 
of the law" of Moses. The parties concerned would not have 
been deceived. And the book claims to be Mosaic. And if 
we examine the internal testimony of the book, the evidence 
is strong for the Mosaic authorship, e. g. its absence of ref- 
erence to the division of the kingdom and the archaic char- 
acter of many of the laws. And whatever may be said about 
editorial annotations, there is no absolute proof for the sup- 
position that the book is a free reproduction or elaboration 
of addresses left by Moses. 

In regard to the so-called Priestly Code the higher criti- 
cism has failed in its attempts. According to the Graf- 
Wellhausen position this Code should be exilian or post- 
exilian, at least in the main parts. But there is not a 
particle of real evidence of exilian authorship. If we turn 
to the reading of the law by Ezra in Neh. VIII we find that 
the narrative bears upon its face every mark of reliability. 
At the reading every one accepted it as "the law of Moses." 
Even the very strongly disaffected party and the faction 



67 

opposed to Ezra and Nehemiah believed it to be the law of 
Moses, and they never raise a question as to the genuineness 
of the Code. And as over against the critical view we should 
notice that both Priests and Levites were present. Accord- 
ing to the critics there was no distinction of Priests and 
Levites before Ezekiel. The Levites originated by the de- 
gradation of the idolatrous priests of the high places, as 
sketched by Ezekiel in chapter XLIV. This is so important 
to Wellhausen that he calls the question of the Levites "the 
Achilles heel of the Priestly Code." The degradation of 
priests does not prove that the order of Levites originated 
then. 

In regard to the unity of the Pentateuch and the questions 
involved, there may be found in our day many monographs 
that amply prove the conservative view. The unity of the 
Pentateuch and its main Mosaic authorship is impregnable 
against the assaults of the destructive higher criticism. 

The archeological discoveries of our day substantiate the 
facts of the Bible. It is a wonderful providence of God that, 
at a time when so much is done to discredit the Old Testa- 
ment, so marvelous discoveries are made by excavations, 
reading of old inscriptions and finding of monuments which 
all corroborate Moses and the prophets. Now it is impos- 
sible to argue that the art of writing was not known in those 
early times, because the archeological discoveries prove the 
existence of an extraordinary civilization in the Tigro- 
Euphrates valley, and in Egypt, long before the emigration 
of Abraham. And in the Hammurabi age, which is that of 
Abraham, we move in the midst of cities and libraries. Bab- 
ylonia had by this time its dynasties of kings. Sargon I, 
whose date is given about 3800 B. C, was the founder of a 
great library at Accad. And the historicity of the Sargon 
of Isa. XX has been proved. His existence had been dis- 
credited, but excavations in the year 1843 revealed his im- 
mense palace. He was the father of Sennacherib. The truth 
of the Bible in regard to this king was proved. But to go 
back to Genesis, we find that modern discoveries substan- 



68 

tiate the account in Gen. XIV. It is now accepted that 
Hammurabi of the inscriptions is Amraphel of Gen. XIV. 
The expedition of Chedorlaomer is verified. And in regard 
to Egypt the monuments describe just such conditions as 
prevailed during the time of Abraham and Joseph, and the 
mummies of the Pharaohs themselves have been found. In 
the list we find Thotmes III, Rameses I, Seti I, Rameses II 
and Meneptah, who by some is supposed to be the Pharaoh 
of the Exodus. But whether it be Meneptah, Rameses II or 
Thotmes III, we have in possession the actual mummy of the 
Pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites and from whose face 
Moses fled. 

Another wonderful verification concerns the Hittites. In 
the books of Joshua and Kings we find references to a for- 
midable Hittite empire. The critics claimed that this was 
unhistorical, as no ancient writer knew anything about such 
a power. But now no reasonable critic can deny that the 
Biblical statement has been confirmed. Both Egyptian and 
Assyrian inscriptions testify most clearly to the fact of the 
existence of such an empire, extending from Syria to the 
Euphrates. The kings of the eighteenth and nineteenth 
dynasties in Egypt conducted campaigns against them. 
Many more dates could be given, and we are certain that 
further excavations will prove the truth of the Biblical 
history. 

Although many more observations in regard to the Old 
Testament could be made, we will conclude with some re- 
marks in regard to Daniel, whose book has been attacked 
by the critics in a vehement manner. If it can be proved 
that Daniel is genuine, the critics lose their best proof 
against the divine inspiration of the Old Testament. More 
or less the critics unite in saying that the book was composed 
in the Maccabean age as a book of comfort to the persecuted 
during the period of Antiochus Epiphanes. But the progress 
of monumental evidence and other data confirm the con- 
servative view. The proof of the early date and wide dif- 
fusion of a high Greek civilization and the intercourse of 



69 

the Greeks in remote times with other nations account for 
the Greek names of instruments of music in the narrative 
of Nebuchadnezzar. There were also Greeks in the army of 
Nebuchadnezzar, and Babylon was a great commercial city. 
Another objection made is the following: The want of har- 
mony between the narrative of Nebuchadnezzar's incursion 
against Judah in Jeremiah and the statement of Daniel that 
the king came up against Jerusalem in the third year of 
Jehoiakim, and that Daniel was to study three years, while 
according to the narrative Daniel already in the second year 
in the reign of the king interpreted the dream, which could 
have occurred only after his completed education. But this 
criticism has no force, because Nebuchadnezzar had not 
ascended the throne at the siege. His father ruled and 
Nebuchadnezzar was coregent and commander of the army. 
Nebuchadnezzar became sole ruler about a year after the 
siege, and then the education of Daniel was completed in 
the second year of his reign. We must also consider in 
regard to the seeming disharmony between Jeremiah and 
Daniel that the Hebrew word for "came" also means "went." 
The word may mean Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem 
or he marched to Jerusalem, according to the viewpoint of 
the writer, if he wrote in Jerusalem or Babylon. The solu- 
tion is, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar marched towards 
Jerusalem from Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim and 
advanced upon Jerusalem the fourth year according to 
Jeremiah. Then there is no contradiction. Another critical 
objection is the mention of Belshazzar as king, because his 
name is not found in ancient historians. According to pro- 
fane history the last king was Nabonidus. But modern re- 
search as a result of monumental inscriptions proves that 
Nabonidus had a son Belshazzar, who was coregent. At 
the siege of Babylon Nabonidus was in the field and Bel- 
shazzar ruled and held the city within. In the Babylonian 
account the city is said to be taken without fighting. But 
it must be noted that an interval elapsed between the first 
quiet entrance and its final fall. The first entrance occurred 



70 

in July and the complete capture four months later. Conse- 
quently the inner part, where Belshazzar held out, was safe 
a few months, until Cyrus and Gobryas in some unknown 
way became masters of it. In the night of the final victory 
Belshazzar was slain. In this there is complete agreement 
with the inscriptions. The critics also object on account of 
Darius the Mede. But according to the Cyropsedia of Xeno- 
phon Darius the Mede is identical with Cyaxares II, father 
in law of Cyrus. Cyrus offered him a palace in Babylon 
and he received the kingdom from Cyrus, but ruled only a 
short time. It was a coregency when Cyrus was otherwise 
engaged. Others believe that Gobryas of the inscriptions 
is Darius the Mede. In either case there would be no contra- 
diction. The objection, therefore, is not of such a character 
as to prove the critical view over against all the arguments 
in the proof for the genuineness of Daniel. All the contents 
of the book go to prove its genuineness and that it was 
written during the time stated. It is not necessary to pre- 
sent the arguments. Passing by the testimony of Josephus, 
which corroborates the genuineness of Daniel, it is evident 
that at the time of Christ, the book was accepted as authentic 
and genuine. And if we believe in Christ, there is no need 
of proofs, as He refers to Daniel, the prophet, and quotes 
from him. The testimony of Christ proves the conservative 
view of the Old Testament. In weighing the force of testi- 
mony, it is evident that the testimony of Christ must be 
accepted over against the changing speculations of the mod- 
ern higher critics. 

2) Some considerations in regard to the New Testament. 

Although the canonicity and genuineness of the New 
Testament books are proved by the early testimonies from 
the first century to the time of Augustine, modern criticism 
has tried to construe a scheme of primitive Christianity 
which would, if true, undermine the foundation of the Chris- 
tian religion. Among the attempts we will only mention 
one, as a detailed account does not belong to an outline of 
Apologetics. Without entering upon a synopsis of the mod- 



71 

ern criticism of the New Testament, we will only present the 
theory of Ferdinand Christian von Baur, who was professor 
of theology in Tubingen, because he was one of the greatest 
of scholars and perhaps stands head and shoulders above 
all modern opponents of the supernatural and miraculous. 
The chief importance of Baur and the Tubingen school lies 
in the critical investigation into the origin of the New Testa- 
ment and the history of the apostolic and subsequent period. 
Baur, being Hegelian as a philosopher, believed that every- 
thing depends upon a natural necessary development, in 
which nothing can form an absolutely new beginning. 
Christianity must, therefore, follow the same law and be 
considered as a period in the growth of religion. According 
to Baur Christianity is the result of all pre-Christian con- 
ceptions. As the miraculous would break the chain of cause 
and effect, he endeavored to divest Christianity of its mirac- 
ulous character. In this attempt he connected Christianity 
with the ideas in Judaism and Heathenism. And he also 
connects the age and Christianity. Universalism prevailed 
then, and the political universalism developed into the Chris- 
tian. The Christian religion became absolute by its spir- 
itual character which was partly developed by Greek ideal- 
ism. And the Hellenic Judaism also became a factor in 
making Christianity Judaism spiritualized. Christ was the 
reformer of the Jewish religion. Because of His spiritual- 
istic conception of the Messiahship the Jewish leaders re- 
jected Him. But His death gained for Christianity its 
future world-wide victory. Baur does not explain the resur- 
rection of Christ, but says that the belief in the resurrection 
by the disciples and their preaching of it started the Chris- 
tian Church. According to Baur there were two parties, 
followers of Peter or Paul, which parties developed into 
Petrinism and Paulinism, the former representing a Jewish 
phase of Christianity and the other a Gentile. Efforts were 
made to mediate between these two. All the books of the 
New Testament originated in one of these parties. He also 
claims that the apostolic age had no decidedly expressed 



72 

conception of the divinity of Christ. For that reason he 
claims that books clearly developing the doctrine of the 
divinity of Christ were composed in the second century. 
He also supposed that the books must have a tendency either 
to uphold the party of Peter or Paul, and if not, to reconcile 
both. If a book is conciliatory to one of these parties, or 
rather both, it determines the time of origin. He considers 
that only five books of the New Testament are genuine and 
apostolic, namely: Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinth- 
ians and Galatians and the Revelation of St. John. And 
according to Baur the real founder of Christianity as a uni- 
versal religion was Paul. 

When Baur claims that his criticism was historical and 
without presuppositions, it was evidently an illusion, as he 
was tainted by the Hegelian view of God and the world. 
This view of his explains his antagonism to supernaturalism 
and miracles. The arguments against Hegelianism dis- 
prove also the critical views of Baur, and if Christianity 
was merely the result of Judaism, Baur does not explain how 
Judaism arose, and if the world at the time of Christ and 
Paul was prepared naturally for the universalism and spir- 
itualism of Christianity, it is unnatural that the world 
should have persecuted the Christians. Baur does not ex- 
plain in any satisfactory way why the disciples believed in 
Christ as divine and in His resurrection. Neither does he 
explain Paul's testimony to the Christian facts in the epis- 
tles which Baur recognizes as genuine. If Paul was the real 
founder of Christianity, Baur should have explained why 
Paul based all on Christ and His death and resurrection. 
The two parties he refers to were not as distinct as he 
avers, and in fact did not exist in such a way as to account 
for any origin of the New Testament books. And he rejects 
the Gospel of St. John, because it declares Jesus to be the 
Son of God. But the synoptics do the same. If St. John 
should have been written in the second century, as claimed, 
then his Gospel by an unknown author would be an inexpli- 
cable phenomenon as compared with the products of that 



73 

period which was not a very productive classical era of liter- 
ature. Negative critics have been compelled to place the 
Gospels in the apostolic age. The scheme of Baur and relat- 
ed critics have failed to overthrow the conservative belief in 
the canonicity, genuineness and supernatural elements of 
the New Testament books. The use of philosophical specu- 
lations in Biblical Criticism has not solved the problem, if 
there is any problem to solve. 

But in the practical work of the ministry, it is rarely nec- 
essary to contend against views as held by men like Baur, 
Weizsacker and Pfleiderer. The skeptics among the ordi- 
nary people are more troubled concerning so-called contra- 
dictions and seeming discrepancies in the New Testament. 
It is impossible to call attention to many of them but as ex- 
amples we will mention a few. 

Some doubting inquirers are troubled, because the quota- 
tions in the New Testament from the Old Testament are not 
always literally correct. But we must consider that the 
New Testament writers quoted both from the Greek version 
and the Hebrew text, depending upon the best reading which 
they would understand better than modern critics. And the 
quotations ad sensum do not prove that the writer was not 
inspired, because the same Holy Spirit guided in the quota- 
tion and in the original rendering. And in quotations it is 
not always necessary to quote ad verbum, if the correct sense 
is given. In quoting, the evangelists and apostles had differ- 
ent objects in view, but as they were moved by the Spirit, 
there could be no misconception as to the meaning, and 
when they quoted from Hebrew, it had to be translated into 
Greek. The Septuagint had evidently some marginal read- 
ings. Not knowing all the circumstances in different read- 
ings, why should any one be troubled, because quotations 
may not be verbatim. If we had the originals before us and 
the authors claimed a quotation ad verbum, then the ques- 
tion might be raised concerning incorrect verbal quotation. 
If the apostles had intended an absolute verbal quotation, 
they would have been careful to make it, because they could 



74 

see the variation better than critics in our days. But the 
authors themselves did certainly not observe any discrepan- 
cies. If they had been imposters, they would surely have 
taken care to foresee and prevent future criticisms. The 
freedom in quotation proves that the authors were honest 
men, and their comments on the original were equally the 
Word of God and give a better understanding than a more 
verbal quotation. 

Others are troubled by seeming contradictions which 
arise from general statements, when one author speaks of 
an event and another more in detail, e. g. Matthew and Mark 
say that the robbers crucified with Christ mocked Him, and 
Luke that only one reviled Him. But such statements are 
allowable when we consider general and detailed descrip- 
tions. And the authors did not see any real discrepancy, be- 
cause then they would have conformed their statements to 
harmony. The narration of Luke is only more explicit. 
When several authors relate the same event, they may not 
mention every detail. There is a similar case in regard to 
the superscription on the cross. But if we compare the dif- 
ferent evangelists, we have the full statement. Mark does 
not contradict the rest, when he says that the inscription 
was "The King of the Jews," because those words were in 
the inscription and he does not affirm that these were the 
ipsima verba. 

There are also seeming contradictions as to numbers. 
For instance, Stephen in Acts 7 : 6 says 400 instead of 430. 
But he spoke in round numbers. And Luke, who was in- 
spired, only related correctly what Stephen said and could 
not correct him, if he were to report the address truthfully. 
Another example we find in 1 Cor. 10 : 8, where Paul tells 
us that the number of persons cut off in the plague was 
23,000, but in Numbers 25 : 9 Moses makes them 24,000, be- 
cause in this number he includes the thousand who were 
also found guilty of idolatry and were slain by the sword. 
Some doubters also point out the difficulties as to chron- 
ology in the tables of genealogy. But we must remember 



75 

that the Hebrew words for father and son do not designate 
the immediate father and son in every case. In Gen. 46: 
16 — 18 three generations are all called the sons of Silpa. 
The genealogical tables were given in some cases artificially 
to serve a certain purpose, just as we find in Matthew that he 
selects fourteen generations in different periods. But he did 
not intend that such statements should be a basis of chron- 
ology. The Bible was not written in order to make an exact 
chronology, but the genealogical tables may yet be of some 
use in calculation of times which are important in sacred 
history. 

Among other objections we will also notice the Noachian 
deluge, as Christ refers to it and thereby recognizes its his- 
toricity. Nearly all nations have a record of such a flood. 
Whence did these records originate? Even if the whole 
earth was flooded, which was not necessary, it has been cal- 
culated mathematically that there is enough humidity in the 
atmosphere for such flooding. No one doubts science in re- 
gard to the glacial period. Whence did the water come to 
form the ice, covering even all mountains? If there be a 
God, nothing is impossible. There is no natural reason to 
doubt the reality of the deluge. 

There are doubters who refer to Jonah being swallowed 
by a whale. But the original word in Hebrew and Greek 
does not necessarily mean a whale, but a huge fish. The 
miracle does not consist in the swallowing, but in the pre- 
servation of the prophet alive in the stomach of the sea- 
monster which may have been a huge shark. And we must 
remember that Christ refers to it, which He would not have 
done, if it had not occurred. It is not necessary to give more 
examples, but for further study of such problems we would 
refer the student to the latest English editions of Home's 
"Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the 
Scriptures." The following books are also useful: Zahn, 
"An Introduction to the New Testament;" Dale, "The Liv- 
ing Christ and the Four Gospels ;" Haley "Alleged Discrep- 
ancies of the Bible ;" Tuck "Handbook of Biblical Difficul- 



76 

ties ;" Torrey, "Difficulties in the Bible." But even if such 
books will not solve all individual difficulties, we must al- 
ways remember that the constant reading of the Bible, in or- 
der to find the way of salvation, will cause the seeming con- 
tradictions to vanish. 

3) . Evidence in regard to the New Testament from some 
of the archeological sources or "finds." 

One of the most important was the "Diatessaron," or Har- 
mony of the Gospels, by Tatian. Formerly even the exist- 
ence of this work was denied, but it has been fully estab- 
lished. In 1876 a work of Ephraem Syrus (who died in 
373 A. D.) was found. He wrote a commentary on the Dia- 
tessaron. When Prof. Zahn issued a reconstruction of the 
Diatessaron, eminent scholars admitted that it was based on 
the four Gospels. In the Vatican was found an Arabic man- 
uscript of the Diatessaron. A similar translation was found 
in Egypt and presented to the Vatican in 1886. English 
translations have been made. The Harmony of Tatian con- 
tains practically the essential points that are found in the 
Gospels. When Tatian wrote his Harmony, the four Gos- 
pels were accepted as a genuine canonical collection. 

In 1892 the Sinai Syriac Palimpsest was found, and the 
recovered pages numbered 17 and contained nearly, or prac- 
tically, the whole of the four Gospels, with the names of the 
evangelists. Many scholars hold that the Palimpsest is older 
than the Diatessaron. Many even think that Tatian based 
his Harmony on a similar copy of the Gospels. Prof. Har- 
nack has said that it is extremely probable that this Syriac 
Sinaiticus is the most important witness for our Gospels. 

The study of archeology has proved that before the close 
of the first century the principal parts of the New Testa- 
ment were translated into the languages of lands where 
missionaries penetrated. Even the apocryphal literature 
throws light upon the spread of the Gospel. The Gospel of 
Peter is mentioned in the writings of Eusebius. The prin- 
cipal notice of Eusebius includes a letter by Serapion, bishop 
at Antioch, to the church at Rhossos in Cilicia. The Gospel 



77 

of Peter had been used in the services, but the bishop did not 
favor its reading at the divine service, because it was tinged 
with Docetic heresy, though "most of it belonged to the right 
teaching of the Saviour, but some things were additions." 
The Gospel of Peter was lost for centuries, but in the year 
1886 a Frenchman found at Akmin in Upper Egypt a vellum 
manuscript in Greek containing the book of Enoch, the Gos- 
pel of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter. The fragment of 
the Gospel is about 150 lines in length and describes the 
passion and resurrection of the Lord. The date of com- 
position must have been in the second century. The four 
canonical Gospels are referred to in this Gospel. 

Other discoveries have added to this class of evidence. 
We refer to writings called Agrapha, a name given to so- 
called sayings of Jesus not recorded in the Gospels. Several 
collections have been made. In 1897 a papyrus-page was 
discovered in Egypt containing eight sayings of Jesus, 
which manuscript is called "the Oxyrhynchus Logia" from 
the place, where it was found. There are selections from the 
Gospels and the epistle to the Romans. Scholars claim that 
these sayings have been written not later than 200 A. D. 
and copied from others before that time. 

Other remarkable finds could be mentioned as strengthen- 
ing the ordinary well-known manuscript versions, etc., but 
it is not necessary. We live in a time of archeological dis- 
coveries, and soon there may be others even more wonderful. 
No book in the world has so many testimonial supports as 
the Bible. 

§8. IMMANENCE OF GOD. 

The transcendental cannot be excluded from our view of 
the universe. God is transcendent, but He is also immanent. 
Without the supernatural the natural can neither begin nor 
continue to be. Nature is not rationally conceived, when the 
supernatural is excluded, but only when viewed as standing 
in and through the supernatural. Matter has no indepen- 
dent being, but spirit has on account of ability to know and 



78 

be known. The real presence of God must be stated in spir- 
itual terms, because it belongs to the sphere of rational ex- 
perience, not to the field of mechanical energies. God oper- 
ates in the latter, but the former realizes His immanence. To 
God the greatest realities of the universe are the spirits He 
has created, just as a house is a house to a man, especially on 
account of the inhabitants in it, and for that reason he takes 
interest in the dwelling also. Consequently we may infer 
that God is not a spectator, but is very active in relation to 
His works. God's omnipresence is not incidental, but a per- 
manent attitude of God. Where ever He is, He must be 
operative. The divine immanence in nature implies imman- 
ence in mind. 

Among opposite theories we will mention: 

1. Deism. 

Deism recognizes a God distinct from the world and lays 
the greatest emphasis upon the distinction and separation 
from the world. 

The Deistic view of human nature is Pelagian. Deists 
took a tolerant view of man's shortcomings. They made 
sin a light thing. They had a pagan view of the future life, 
only looking upon a disembodied form of existence. The 
watchword of Deism was only the immortality of the soul 
and not the resurrection of the body. 

The Deists considered that all evil is our own work. Pain 
and sickness only prove that the machine is out of order. 
Nature intends that we should never suffer. 

The Deists' view of God is contrary to the conception of 
an absolute, almighty and benevolent Being. God could not 
be such a Being, if He had no interest in the continuance of 
the world, in its upholding and government. The Bible 
proves that He is most active, even in the smallest details. 

Human freedom, in its relation to the Divine will, renders 
it necessary that God constantly is active in the course of 
human history. And the salvation of man necessitated a 
Divine interposition and special revelation. 



79 

The salvation of man concerns his whole personality and 
not only his soul. And even if man is the cause of many 
sufferings, still it is evident that these pains and troubles 
often are disciplinary and prove the moral government of 
God. 

2. Agnosticism. 

This is an attitude in our time which does not express it- 
self by propounding a special theory, but rather by declining 
to have one. It is the negation of real or possible knowledge 
concerning God and His relation to the world. God is an 
unknown quantity. It might be admitted that He is, but 
what He is no man knows. 

The doctrine of Nescience is associated with the name of 
Herbert Spencer : He says that the power which the universe 
manifests to us is utterly inscrutable. The problem of the 
origin of the world is insoluble. We should be satisfied in 
the conviction "that it is alike our highest wisdom and duty 
to regard that through which all things exist as unknow- 
able." 

It is evident that Agnostocism is fatal to all Christian 
faith. And it is incredible that if God exists He should be 
so entirely unknowable, and that there should be no hints of 
truth concerning God in nature, history and the human 
spirit. 

Even if it could be proved that the Darwinian theory has 
largely restricted the material available for the teleological 
argument, this argument cannot be entirely disproved. And 
if there is design in nature and history, God must be im- 
manent and operative. 

So far the Agnostics have not been able to disprove the 
Spiritualistic and Theistic basis of Christianity. The com- 
mon Christian experience of an immanent God cannot be 
disproved. And this experience cannot be accounted for if 
God is entirely unknowable and if He does not manifest 
Himself by His operative immanence. 



- 



;9. MIRACULOUS FACTS. 



The miraculous is one mode of the supernatural. 

A miracle is a wonderful phenomenon, not explicable by 
known laws, designed to give attestation to divine revela- 
tion. Christianity claims that such attestations have oc- 
curred, and they are, therefore, subject to observation and 
testimony. In relation to nature, a miracle is in it, but not of 
it, and, therefore, originates in a special intervention. But 
not all signs may be partly explained by the divine concur- 
rence in natural laws. There are both absolute and relative 
miracles. 

1. Objections to Miracles. 

1) . Miracles are a violation of the laws of nature. 

Answer : This implies a wrong view of the natural laws. 
The natural laws are God's ordinary mode of action, but, 
being creations of God, cannot bind God and interfere in 
His personal freedom to act independently and directly. If 
we believe in creation, there is no universal binding of cause 
and effect. The laws of nature cannot explain creation. 
Creation in its primary form is a direct work and a miracle. 
[The origin of life is not a natural cause. Life did not al- 
ways exist on earth. The objectors have never proved that 
the laws of nature alone are valid always and everywhere. 
And the miracles of God do not break any law of nature. 
E en man intensifies the forces of nature and produces ef- 
fects which nature, left to itself, would never bring about. 

2). Miracles are excluded by the uniformity of nature. 

Answer : But the miracles do not upset the true uniform- 
it}', because all causes must be included. If it means that 
the same series of physical causes and phenomena continue 
invariably the same, it is refuted by human agency using 
physical sequences, amplifying them for different purposes. 
Providence and history refute the objection. And who 
knows all the causes and natural laws? Hume speaks of 
unalterable experience, but experience is indefinite. Many 



81 

experiences nowadays would have been impossible some 
time ago. 

3). Miracles do not happen nowadays; therefore, they 
never happened at all. 

Answer : In the first place, the same things do not always 
reoccur. The design of miracles proves why they do not 
occur always. But it cannot be proved that all miracles have 
ceased. Many things go to prove that they occur occasion- 
ally. 

But this objection has perhaps captivated more men than 
any other objection. Many may argue as superficially as 
Renan : "One single miracle performed in Paris before com- 
petent judges would for ever settle so many doubts!" But 
we cannot expect that God would perform miracles in order 
to satisfy curiosity or unreasonable demands of unbelievers, 
because in that case miracles would have to be performed 
continually, by which continuity they would cease to appear 
as miracles and would be placed in the category of some nat- 
ural law. If God had endowed some minister to perform a 
miracle before Renan, would he have been converted? We 
doubt it. And then every unbeliever would demand the 
same convincing proof. If Renan had believed and testified, 
would unbelievers have trusted his testimony, when he previ- 
ously would not accept the testimony of the apostles ? Prob- 
ably not. And who would be accepted as competent judges? 
In our time of inventions, scientific wonders and new 
thought, most miracles, if not all, when performed, would 
be explained by the use of some natural power or by meth- 
ods employed in the different schools of curing disease. And 
if some miracles could not be explained or imitated as by the 
sorcerers in the time of Moses, modern unbelievers would 
relegate such miracles to unsolved problems which science 
would sooner or later tackle. No, our time is not suitable 
for the miracles of old to be repeated, but the old Biblical 
miracles remain as testimonies to all fairminded searchers 
of truth. The miracles served their time, and their lesson 
is continuous. 



82 

And it cannot be absolutely denied that miracles of the 
old type still occur. We refer the student to the instances 
mentioned in Christlieb's "Modern Doubt and Christian Be- 
lief." A careful investigation will reveal many miraculous 
events. And the relative miracles occur daily in God's won- 
derful answers to the prayer of faith. We must also con- 
sider that the spiritual transformation in the new birth is a 
greater miracle than the ordinary. A regenerated person 
does not need any more convincing proof than his own ex- 
perience. But we will treat this topic in another division. 

2. Arguments for the Truth of Miracles. 

1) Whatever miracles are wrought they are matters of 
fact and are capable of being proved by evidence. Miracles 
are historical facts, testified to by numerous witnesses, who 
had full opportunity of observing. These witnesses were 
honest, unimpeachable and good men. They gave full de- 
tails and shaped their whole lives by the supernatural facts 
and doctrines. 

2) The miracles were performed publicly and in the pres- 
ence of foes and friends. 

3) The miracles were many and performed during long 
periods and under varied conditions, and no deception was 
therefore possible. 

Hume argued that a miracle is so contradictory to all 
human experience that it is more reasonable to believe any 
amount of testimony false than to believe a miracle to be 
true. But this argument of Hume is fallacious, because it 
makes our own personal experience the measure of all hu- 
man experience. And it requires belief in a greater wonder 
than those in question. That multitudes of intelligent men 
should, against all their interest, unite in deliberate and per- 
sistent falsehood, under the circumstances narrated in the 
New Testament, involves a change in the sequences of na- 
ture far more than the recorded miracles. 

If we will consider this fact, it is self-evident that the nar- 
rations of the miracles must be true. In case these narra- 



83 

tions had been falsifications, we might ask: Why were no 
miracles attributed to John the Baptist? Even the enemies 
of Jesus considered him a true prophet. But the evangelists 
as truthful men told no stories. John the Baptist performed 
no miracles, and, therefore, there is no record. If they had 
been deceivers, we may be sure that some one among them 
would have invented miracles in the work of John the Bap- 
tist. 

Any one denying the truth of the miracles, denies revela- 
tion. But he cannot explain by natural causes all wonderful 
phenomena in nature and history. He cannot account for 
the religious history of Israel and the Christian Church. 
And such a person can never explain the origination of the 
grand utterances in the Bible. No other book contains such 
high ideas. The Bible is a miracle itself. And if we believe 
that the Bible is the word of God, there cannot be any doubt 
as to the possibility and credibility of miracles. 



84: 



II. Anthropological Apologetics. 



§10. THE CREATION OF MAN. 
1. The Claim of the Bible and Christianity. 

According to the Bible Christianity claims that the nar- 
rative of the creation of man in Genesis is historically true, 
and that other books in the Bible corroborate the same view. 

If the Bible account is not true, then we have no reliable 
history of the creation of man. It is evident that science is 
unable to present anything but a hypothesis. None but the 
Creator Himself could reveal the mode of creation. The 
angels have not revealed it, and we do not know if they saw 
it. And even if they saw it and would reveal it, scientific 
men among modernists would not believe it. 

As Moses could not know it except from some traditional 
or direct revelation, we have no other basis but the account 
given in the Bible. All other accounts may be interesting 
from a comparative point of view, but cannot serve as a ba- 
sis of belief. It is not necessary to know whether Moses saw 
the creation in a vision, or a direct revelation was given to 
him. Whatever the mode of information which God used, it 
was revelation. Scientists who reject revelations are only 
able to offer speculations, because it is self-evident that no 
scientist can ever hope to solve the origin of the world or the 
creation of man. Their speculations may appear to many as 
plausible theories, but the safest side is on the line of the 
Bible, when scientists do not offer any absolute valid proofs 
for their theories, and believers could under no circumstan- 
ces adopt any view which would clearly contradict the Bible. 

There are two narratives in Genesis setting forth the ori- 



85 

gin of man, but they are not contradictory. In the first nar- 
rative man is the climax of creation, and the second account 
presents details concerning the creation of man. And in 
this description an immediate origination is plainly set 
forth. It is not, "Let the waters or earth bring forth," but 
God said : "Let us make man." The word Adam is used to 
include both sexes. God first formed the male from the dust 
of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
life. This breathing or communication of life is also direct. 
The creation of the female is also described as a direct act of 
God. In none of these creations is there any real basis for 
the doctrine of evolution. There is nothing to show that a 
long time intervened between the formation from dust and 
the inbreathing of life. It is evidently not a self-develop- 
ment from the inorganic to the organic, and there is noth- 
ing in the record to prove an evolution from different ani- 
mals to some kind of an ape-man. The dust of the ground 
could not be a cell which was to develop through different 
stages, before God communicated the higher life. And the 
rib from which Eve was formed could not be a cell which was 
to develop. Then the male Adam would have waited a long 
time, before a wife was given to him. There is nothing in the 
narrative to show that he roamed in Eden a long time before 
the formation of Eve. When God caused him to sleep, there 
is no basis for such a long sleep as would be required accord- 
ing to the doctrine of evolution. If Eve should have devel- 
oped in the long successive stages of evolution, it would be 
impossible to harmonize the creation narrative as stated in 
Genesis. The narrative gives the impression that Eve was 
created or formed immediately after the creation of the 
Adam-man, only a sleep intervening. Some carpers and 
lampooners ridicule the idea that Eve sprung from the rib 
of Adam. But evolutionists cannot justly object when they 
state that inorganic matter may develop into the vegetable, 
and the vegetable into the animal, and the ape into a man. 
If, for instance, a stone could develop thus, why not a rib? 
It may be hard to explain why God selected the rib, but 



86 

if man develops from a cell, the rib may correspond to it 
as it depends upon cell-life. The ribs of a man enclose such 
life-powers as the lungs and heart. The rib was, therefore, 
just as suitable as any cell as a basis for forming the female. 
And it is self-evident that Moses would not have invented 
this mode of creation, and no one else, which proves it was a 
revealed fact. If God created the male from the dust and 
the female from the rib of the man, the uncommonness of 
the mode should not cause unbelief. The secondary crea- 
tions which we daily witness have their basis in the dust of 
the ground, from which spring vegetation and animal life. 
The indwelling cells, planted in the soil, could not have creat- 
ed themselves. When the water and earth by the command 
of God brought forth vegetation and animals, we must not 
forget the previous brooding of the Spirit of God. In the 
creation of man, God used as a basis the dust in the case of 
the male and the rib in the case of the female, but it was a 
direct act. And there was only one inbreathing, because Eve 
was propagated from the male both as to body and soul. Thus 
man was created a species in two individuals. In begetting 
offspring the propagation continued according to the natu- 
ral manner which God had instituted, and this propagation 
is both physical and psychical. No one denies the natural 
propagation, but from it we may learn a lesson to present 
an argument against the evolution theory in regard to the 
origin of man. 

Acording to physiology the human egg is 1/120 part of an 
inch in diameter and contains all the constituent parts of a 
simple organic cell. The egg consists of the protoplasm, the 
nucleus, which is only 1/600 part of an inch in diameter and 
the nucleolus or germinal spot. From such a small nucleo- 
lus a human being is developed and born into this world in 
nine months. Considering this fact it is absurd to believe 
that the bringing forth of the first man should require the 
evolutionary long period. 

There are, therefore, no real obstacles in believing the im- 
mediate creation of Adam by God. The New Testament, 



87 

which is the great classic of Christianity, upholds the same 
view. It is the only theory which explains man's highest 
place in creation, when we consider that man was created in 
the image of God. Concerning other creatures the expres- 
sion "after his kind" is used, but in regard to man God said : 
"Let us make man in our image after our likeness." 

2. Various Arguments against the Pseudo-evolution 

Theory. 

There is a true evolution such as the transformation of the 
homogeneous. There is evolution in the very nature of cau- 
sation acting in the whole physical world. The effect is 
evolved from the cause. All the operations of nature are 
regulated by law. The development is seen in the organic 
kingdoms. All plants and animals proceed from a seed or 
germ. And evolution may produce varieties in the species. 
This may be effected by environment. The dog, by being 
habituated to certain kinds of work, may become a shepherd 
dog or a hunting dog. The divers pigeon may have descend- 
ed from the rock pigeon; roses may have sprung from the 
common dog-rose, etc. But varieties, when they pair with 
each other, are not prolific and are apt to return to the origi- 
nal. 

The fully developed Pseudo-evolution theory claims the 
transmutation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous ; 
for instance, it claims that a homogeneous mineral by in- 
trinsic force during a long period converts itself into a 
heterogeneous vegetable. It is a change of matter. The 
homogeneous vegetable converts itself into the hetero- 
geneous animal ; the homogeneous animal transmutes itself 
to man. 

The arguments against the false evolution are such as the 
following : 

a) No scientist has ever discovered an instance of the 
transmutation of species. There is no proof that the vital 
develops from the non-vital. 

b) The experimental evidence for the transmutation of 



substance is very deficient. Darwin confines the transmu- 
tation to the organic world. He says : "I imagine that prob- 
ably all organic beings that ever lived on this earth descend- 
ed from some primitive form, which was first called into 
being by the Creator." In his "Origin of Species" he speaks 
of "the breathing of life by the Creator into a few forms, 
or into one." 

c) Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot be proved. 
According to a calculation by Mr. Mivart natural selection 
requires 2,500 millions of years, since life began in the plant, 
to bring the flora and fauna to the present state. But others 
make it less. Many hold that the existence of man upon 
earth must have succeeded the glacial period. When did 
that occur? Four independent measurements by American 
geologists so agree as to form a medium estimate of six or 
seven thousand years. 

The famous geologist Dawson makes the following state- 
ment : "We require to make great demands on time for the 
pre-human periods of the earth's history, but not more than 
sacred history is willing to allow for the modern or human 
age." He claims that the shorter period mostly adopted by 
Chirstian scholars is not geologically impossible. We refer 
the student to Dawson's "Origin of the World." 

d) The examples deduced by the advocates of Pseudo- 
evolution do only prove that varieties develop from species. 
Haeckel shows that varieties of sponges spring from the one 
species Olynthus. But the difference between sponge and 
sponge is not the same as between mineral and plant. Dar- 
win's illustration with varieties of pigeons does not prove 
that pigeons sprang from fish or from cabbage and still less 
from stone. 

e) If the doctrine of Pseudo-evolution is true, it should 
be supported by a multitude of facts, but as yet there is not 
a single example. 

A natural law works constantly. If the inorganic world 
change into the organic, we should see such changes daily in 
some mode of development. And if apes would develop into 



89 

men, we should find examples of such evolutions always. 
Why should one ape become a man and then the evolution 
cease ? According to natural law it is incomprehensible why 
just one or two apes developed into men. Why have not the 
rest developed? The law of natural selection would not 
explain why one or two apes would evolve to a higher state. 
And the so-called connecting link has not been found, al- 
though claims sometimes are made. 

f ) The theory is also disproved by the fact that hybrids 
between real species are unfertile. Prof. Agassiz says: 
"Domestication never produces forms which are self -perpet- 
uating, and is, therefore, in no way an index of the process 
by which species are produced." 

g) The design in nature also disproves Pseudo-evolution. 
Such evident designs could not be explained, if nature was 
left to itself. 

h) The comparison between the embryo of man at four 
weeks with that of a chick, or at eight weeks with that of 
a dog, does not prove the claims of Pseudo-evolution. The 
development of the embryo proves plainly the difference of 
species. Similarity in the material and visible substance 
does not prove similarity in the invisible and mental struc- 
ture. If there was a human form without the spirit it would 
be as far from man as the ox. 

Consequently there are no valid proofs against the claims 
of Christianity that man was an immediate creation of God. 

3. Unity of the Human Race. 
a. The historical argument. 

It is a generally accepted theory that all nations in suc- 
cessive migrations have come from Asia. Modern ethnolo- 
gists hold that the American Indians are derived from Mon- 
golians in Asia, either migrating through Polynesia or by 
way of the Aleutian Islands. It was comparatively easy to 
cross over to modern Alaska. The migrations in the Old 
World had no serious obstacles to encounter. 



90 

b. The language question. 

Comparative philology points to a common origin of 
language. Change of language and modifications do not re- 
quire any lengthy time. This is also proved by provincial 
dialects. 

c. The physiological argument. 

All must recognize the essential identity in cranial, osteo- 
logical and dental characteristics. Then we must also con- 
sider the fertility of unions between the most diverse types. 
The different colors, size and forms may be explained by 
climate and diet. The continuous abode of a race in Africa 
under the influence of a hot sun explains the dark type, and 
the cold in the far North explains the type of the Eskimo. 
The Anglo-Saxons in the United States are a different type 
from their English ancestors. The appearance of the Indian 
is a result of a life in the open on the plains. The Jews are 
nearly of one ancestry and yet there are many types, light 
and dark. And we see daily the effect of different foods and 
drinks, not to speak of vocations. By food and climate per- 
sons change in a few years. And physical exercise develops 
different types. This is evident from the appearance of the 
modern athlete. 

§11. MAN'S NATURE. 

According to Scripture man is a complex being but still 
a unity. The Bible declares that God formed the man, dust 
from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath 
of life and man became a living soul. There are two con- 
stituents, one from below and one from above and yet these 
two result in a unit. The duality of the human nature is 
clearly expressed in the Bible. 

The Theistic Anthropology asserts that man in his nature 
is allied to God. Man is a spirit and bears in his being the 
image of God and in finiteness he is what God is in infini- 
tude. The Theistic philosophy, therefore, claims the su- 
periority of man in relation to nature. Man is also a part 



91 

of nature through his body. And the philosophy of Theism 
lays stress upon the true personality of man. The animal 
is individual but not personal. In his personality man is 
clearly distinguished from the creatures about him. Man 
is self-conscious and self-determining. 

The non-Theistic philosophies of our time deny this con- 
ception of man. The force of the present attack depends 
upon the so-called scientific basis which materialism and 
agnosticism claim to derive from the theory of evolution. 
But it is simply a mere philosophical speculation, as there 
is not a particle of scientific proof that man in his distinc- 
tive marks is derived from the animal. 

The non-Theistic philosophies attempt to prove that man 
is impersonal. The boundaries between the physical and 
psychical are broken down and mental phenomena are ex- 
plained by a natural process. But if man is no personality, 
then, as far as we know, there is no personality, and as we 
have the idea of God, how could we hold that He is a per- 
sonality, if we are impersonal. In that case everything 
would be a delusion. 

Man's freedom is also denied by the non-Theistic philoso- 
phies. These philosophies are deterministic. The denial 
of freedom lowers man to an animal. But man has evidently 
rational choice. Man acts in the light of reason. Human 
consciousness proves the truth of freedom as it exists in a 
sinful world. Freedom is implied in responsibility and the 
recognition of the law. 

In responsibility the immense cleft between man and the 
beast appears. A beast cannot be rewarded or punished 
in the ethical sense. The beast is not a responsible being. 
The doctrine of responsibility is, therefore, an argument 
for the claims of Christianity. 

The Theistic philosophy teaches that man was made for 
God and finds his highest good in Him. Man's moral en- 
dowments merge in his religious nature. Man is, therefore, 
spiritual and stands related to the spiritual world. The non- 
Theistic philosophies deny a real spirituality. 



92 

But our consciousness proves in our higher aspirations 
that we are not matter only, but spirit. Our religious feel- 
ings could never be explained if there was no spiritual na- 
ture. 

§12. MORAL EVIL. 

The Theistic philosophy asserts the actuality of human 
sin. But the fact of sin is in different ways denied by the 
non-Theistic systems. The doctrine of sin belongs both to 
Natural Theology and Philosophy of Religion. But Chris- 
tianity throws a new light upon sin. 

1. The Account of the Fall of Man in Genesis is 
Historically True. 

a) There is no intimation in the account itself that it is 
not historical. 

b) The account being found in a historical book, the pre- 
sumption is that it is literal history. 

c) The Scripture-writers refer to it as literal history. 

d) All the conditions are such as are suitable to man's 
innocent but untried childhood. 

e) No other theory serves as a better explanation and 
there is nothing unreasonable in the Mosaic narrative. 

2. The Cause of the Moral Evil. 

The infinitely good and almighty God cannot be the cause 
of moral evil. Moral evil is due to the action of a personal 
will in beings of reason, if they be angels or men. 

Why was man made such that it was possible for him 
to sin? When God is almighty, why did He not prevent 
man's sin? We must consider that almighty power is not 
able to perform what is in the nature of the case incapable 
of performance, but such inability does not limit the Al- 
mighty, but defines the province; for instance, God cannot 
make the part equal to the whole or make a circle to be a 
square. God could not make another infinite like Himself. 



93 

He could only create a being relative to Himself, capable of 
realizing character by choice. 

Moral freedom was necessary, because otherwise we must 
conceive a universe of automata or of reasons mechanical. 
Such creations would not have been worthy of God. The 
only creations worthy of God is a universe of persons who 
are self-conscious and self -determining. 

And we may say: Could there then be obedience if dis- 
obedience was impossible? The very notion of a moral na- 
ture implies an order that cannot be broken. God could not 
prevent the possibility of sin, if His creatures were to be 
free persons. Was it then good that God created man ? He 
did it in love and He had to take the risk. Analogically we 
may say that every father faces the problem which God 
faced in creating a personal universe. But the risk may be 
taken in the hope that the offspring may become morally 
good. 

It is true God foreknows, but the foreknowledge is based 
upon the action of real existence. 

It has been asked: Could not God, when man's will in- 
clined to evil, have intervened and prevented the evil choice ? 
But intervention would have been destruction. A will sus- 
pended is the same as a will destroyed. The man would 
have become a will-less automaton, and ceased to be a per- 
son. Such an annihilation, even if desirable, would be an 
impossibility. And God has done all that is possible to re- 
deem man, and only those who finally reject the proffered 
grace will remain evil and suffer all the consequences by 
their own choice. 

3. The Fact of Human Sin. 

Sin is a reality and not simply imagination. The Theis- 
tic Philosophy declares that man is personal, free, under 
law, and responsible. Christianity teaches the same and 
claims that sin is a breach of the moral law and disobedience 
to God. The essence of sin is selfishness. 

The fact of sin is proved by general experience. Sin can- 



94 

not be denied, if we appeal to consciousness or to the con- 
science of every individual man. The fact of sin is proved 
by an analysis of the pathological state of the intellectual 
bodily organism of man. The evil will of man causes a dis- 
placement of the aims of life. His understanding is dark- 
ened and his whole physico-bodily life is currupted. The 
sinful will, the corrupted nature and the impure feelings de- 
prave the whole personality. This is constantly illustrated 
in human life of all conditions. And all the external effects 
of sin prove plainly that sin is actual. The reality of sin is 
so self-evident that no proofs are necessary. Still there are 
antagonistic theories and speculations which attempt to 
disprove the reality and actuality of sin. 

According to Pantheism sin does not exist in the sense 
accepted by the Theist. Pantheism implies a denial of divine 
personality and of human personality, and, therefore, also 
of freedom and accountability. According to Pantheism, 
sin is an element in the divine process just as necessary as 
goodness, though less good. Sin is only the opposite pole of 
goodness. 

Agnosticism makes sin physical rather than ethical, and 
sin is a misfortune rather than wrong. If the absolute is 
unknown and yet cause of phenomena, there is no responsi- 
bility. The unknowable becomes really the cause of sin. 

According to evolution sin is want of conformity to the 
environment. It is only a failure to evolve oneself correctly. 

But it is evident that such speculations do not disprove 
the fact of sin. If the actuality of sin can be denied by such 
reasoning, then everything may be disproved and our whole 
experience become a delusion. 

§13. PHYSICAL EVIL. 

Physical evil is mainly the result of sin. There are evils 
that result from man's relation to nature and nature's rela- 
tion to man. And there are evils that are native to man's 
being, and also such as are inflicted upon him by men and 
circumstances. 



95 

The elements of nature cause many evils such as foul 
weather, storms and earthquakes. Such earthquakes as in 
Lisbon cause doubt as to the wisdom and goodness of God. 

Then nature is not always responsive to the toil of man, 
which is illustrated in famines and in devastations caused 
by the locust and the cankerworm. Then there are evils 
resulting from man's neglect of nature. Then there are 
constitutional sufferings such as pain in birth, sickness, 
hardships and death with all its associate evils. 

The sufferings inflicted by men are numerous and make 
this world a vale of tears. If we were to picture this evil 
it would be an awful drama of the passions of men and na- 
tions. It is a terrible reality which we all experience and 
daily see in the life of men and nations, and constantly is 
told in the daily press and in all books. And yet there are 
men and even religious communities who claim that physi- 
cal evil is imagination. 

1. Attempts to Explain the Reasons for Physical Evil. 

a) When we recognize the fact of sin, we must expect the 
consequences of sin. 

b) The natural forces that cause destruction or calami- 
ties do not prove anything against the goodness of God. 
These forces serve as educators. By observation man be- 
comes a master of these forces, or at least escapes many of 
their disastrous consequences. Nature must be known in 
order to be controlled. Mankind has learned many lessons 
from these forces and turned them to benefit instead of de- 
stroying. 

It is true that inexplicable calamities occur, but they 
serve some purpose unknown to us. Some of them may be 
means for punishment of sin and natural neglect. 

c) Many sufferings depend upon our own neglect, care- 
lessness and improvidence. A direct supernatural inter- 
vention in every evil caused by ignorance, carelessness or 
neglect would not be beneficial. If the storm would be sub- 
dued in every case when threatening to engulf men, etc., we 



96 

would not have had the marvelous engineering and the big 
ships traversing the mighty ocean, etc. There is nothing so 
fatal to manhood as the charity that pauperizes. No pre- 
mium can safely be set upon the shiftless and retrogessive 
qualities or habits of men. 

Many diseases depend upon careless exposure, upon diet 
and upon lack of exercise and fresh air. How could God be 
expected to protect persons who have no regard for them- 
selves. Man must learn by experience to escape many for- 
ces of physical evil. 

d) And in regard to evils native to man, it may be said 
that many may be mitigated and even overcome, and the evil 
may serve as a daily school to prepare man for good work 
here and for the development of character to serve him in 
the Kingdom of God to come. 

Death is, of course, one of the hardest problems to solve. 
This awful drawback in the human existence on earth does 
not only cause pain to the person himself, but often makes 
the life of others desolate and throws a gloom over their 
whole future. And yet death has been very beneficent and 
evoked many feelings and activities for the best of man- 
kind. And without death man would not have had the keen 
sense of his kinship with the Infinite for the finite would 
have been enough for him. Even the losses help us in love, 
charity and tenderness, and direct the living to live a fuller 
and more complete life. 

e) But there are also sufferings inflicted upon man by 
man. These are darker than those inflicted by nature. But 
God cannot be held accountable, because direct intervention 
would mean constant miracles of determinism in the affairs 
of man. In the present order of things God cannot inter- 
fere directly in all cases, although He may direct for good, 
impede and circumscribe the evil actions of men. 

f ) And finally we must consider that this life is only an 
education, and the history of our lives will run its greater 
and eternal course in the life to come. 



97 
2. False Explanations or Theories. 

a. False optimism. 

This theory makes the best of evil and throws a veil over 
its reality. 

From Leibnitz' "Theodicee" we have the formula, "This 
is the best of all possible worlds." A better world might be 
imagined, but no better could have been made. God could 
accomplish only the possible, and a moral world without 
evil was beyond the power of Omnipotence. The metaphysi- 
cal evil was primary and was limitation of being and be- 
longed to everything less than God. Physical evil was due 
to meta-physical. A limited being must suffer in a privative 
sense, lacking the beatitude of God, and in a positive way on 
account of the many causes that make up the created uni- 
verse. Evil was really something good, only a lesser degree. 

Pope in his "Essay on Man" expresses his optimism in the 
formula, "Whatever is, is right." He contends that the per- 
son who suffers ought to be content, because his sufferings 
serve great universal ends. All evil that befalls us is a work 
for harmony that we do not understand. 

Pantheistic optimism has two types, one with a specially 
ethical temper in Spinoza and the other with an intellectual 
and logical mind. Spinoza considered evil a natural thing. 
All evil was necessary. 

The Hegelian view meant the actual was rational. "Find 
a reason for what is, and what is will be found to be reason- 
able." 

b. Pessimism. 

Pessimism makes evil as of the very essence of being, and 
it concerns the universe in such a way that it does not seek 
the preservation of being, but rather the expulsion of evil 
by the abolition of existence. Evil is universal and there is 
no good. 

The Philosophy of Buddhism is an ancient phase of Pes- 
simism. 

Schopenhauer is a leading modern representative of this 



98 

tendency. Will is the chief factor of life and is the supreme 
reality and the cause of existence. We create life by willing 
to live. But the existence which the will struggled to realize 
was misery. Concerning the world he said : "This world is 
so bad that no world would have been better. It is some- 
thing that had better never have been." 

Both these tendencies are wrong. The good must be rec- 
ognized, but not in the way of false optimism. And on the 
other hand, existence is not an evil. To live is a great op- 
portunity, and our life may be improved. Think of a world 
without self-conscious existence, no man to think, no family 
love, no race to weave the wreath of success, but only va- 
cancy. Fill out such a gloomy picture, and think of the 
world as it is with all the opportunities now and hereafter. 
Christianity throws the true light on existence and contains 
true optimism and true pessimism. The Christian religion 
is the greatest in its battles against sin and in its relief of 
physical evil, and promises a better day, when there will be 
no sin, sickness or death, but an ideal world in the kingdom 
of God. 

c. The "New Thought" propaganda, the Christian Sci- 
ence and related sciences. 

It is not easy to find a settled and fixed name for the many 
theories, schools and societies, which find expression in the 
New Thought movement. Only the so-called Christian 
Science has become a well-known Church-society as it has 
attracted many by the hope of curing diesease. Its doctrine 
of sin has also appealed to others, who are more interested 
in the cure of moral evil. The New Thought societies have 
also gained adherents for the same reasons, but the Chris- 
tian Science gains perhaps more by using the forms of a 
church. Many have been attracted by the philosophy up- 
holding the new religion which really is pantheism and 
Buddhism or related Hinduistic ideas, blended with Chris- 
tian ideas. But the ordinary people are more interested in 
the cure of physical evil. Such people would not leave their 



99 

own church, if they knew that their own Christian church 
offers all the good that the Christian Science bestows and 
far more. By being faithful to the Christian Church they 
also escape the heresies of the false sciences. When so- 
called Christian Science cures, it does so by stimulating the 
vital forces and by using suggestion, mind cure, faith cure 
and similar methods. We can use such means without be- 
coming Christian Scientists. But it is necessary to lay hold 
of such natural means and also pray to God in faith and in 
the name of Jesus. A Christian will sooner be cured than a 
scientist, if he uses both spiritual and natural means. But 
many regular church members may have been negligent and 
only employed spiritual means and in weak faith. Whatever 
church we belong to, we cannot expect to cure all diseases, as 
some we cannot escape and others are incurable, if God 
does not interfere. But we do not need to become Christian 
Scientists to experience God's wonderful intervention, espe- 
cially when the Christian Scientists do not believe in inter- 
ference by a personal God. 

It is not our intention to go into details in presenting the 
doctrines of the Christian Science or such movements. Their 
literature is accessible and also books of defense in behalf 
of the Christian viewpoint. But in connection with the ques- 
tion of evil we could not pass by theories which to many are 
burning issues. In our defense of the Christian doctrine 
nothing is gained by attacking what may be acceded, be- 
cause there are other means to prove the Christian views. 

We should also be wise when we meet adherents of the 
New Thought movements. Some only accept their ideas in 
care of health, although there may be a danger that the un- 
derlying philosophy may be accepted. But usually it is only 
an interest in well-being and success. Still we must be on 
our guard, because the literature in most cases undermines 
the believer's faith in the supernatural. Several authors use 
Biblical and Christian terms. Bible quotations are used in 
a misleading way. The reading of the Bible is encouraged, 
but the exegesis of the New Thought people is contrary to 



100 

Christian principles. If the New Thought adherents had 
only interested themselves in working for good health and 
well-being, a useful mission had been performed, but their 
religious ideas and philosophy do harm to the spiritual health 
of men. There is no unity in their religious system. But we 
must consider the sufferings of men in sickness, poverty and 
all kinds of trouble, and how the New Thought doctrines 
become a new gospel, when you can be cured from sickness 
without medicine, and how easily you may become well to do. 
You are also shown an easier way to be delivered from mor- 
al evil. The New Thought adherents may not go so far as 
the Christian Science, which says that disease and sin do not 
exist, except in the person's imagination. According to 
Christian Science the thought in a so-called sickness creates 
the symptoms of the disease. Thought is powerful, but 
thought is not God. But Christian Science, Mentalism and 
some leaders in the New Thought movement at least nearly, 
if not entirely, depose God, and most of them deny a per- 
sonal God. 

In our combat against the New Thought ideas we should 
recognize the benefit of right thinking. But we must hold 
forth that the Bible has the same teaching. The Bible ad- 
monishes us not to worry, but cast all our burdens upon the 
Lord. It is not necessary that a Christian is sick, poor and 
unhappy. Many of our diseases are of our own making. The 
same is the truth in regard to other sufferings. It is true 
that the principal care of the Church is the cure of the soul, 
but we often reach the soul through the body. In our days 
there is great interest in all movements for health and hap- 
piness. The Church gains by observing the signs of the 
time. We should take a deep interest in deep breathing, 
exercise, correct diet and all movements for the betterment 
of the suffering. The New Thought societies win adherents 
by books and pamphlets which treat of health and success. 
The Christian Church will retain many of the young and 
gain others by spreading books which present the Christian 
standpoint and at the same time give information about 



101 

physical culture and other means of health. By such infor- 
mation many diseases will be prevented, money will be saved 
and even poverty lessened. The Church will find many 
books which treat such subjects. Lectures may be deliv- 
ered on these topics. The positive apology for the Christian 
views gains more than the negative. 



y 



III. Soteriological Apologetics. 



§14. MAN'S NEED OF REDEMPTION. 

When sin is a fact and sin implies guilt, it is evident that 
man needs to be saved from sin and all its consequences. 

Christianity claims that God, in His infinite love and 
justice, has provided a way of salvation and final redemp- 
tion. Man could not save himself, and therefore God sent 
a Saviour who will come again as a Redeemer. The Gospel- 
relation to the salvation of man is no human invention. 
Naturally man inclines to self -redemption. Man could not 
of himself have imagined, invented, or a priori constructed 
the saving plan of God as revealed in the Gospel. 

The consciousness of guilt in man is the fundamental 
hindrance which makes every scheme of self-redemption 
impossible. Man has made the attempt, and there are not 
only ethnical religions, but many philosophies which con- 
tain schemes of self -redemption. Still it has never satis- 
fied the conscience of man as does the way of salvation in 
the Christian Church. 

§15. THE PERSON OF THE SAVIOUR. 

Christianity teaches that the second hypostasis of the 
Godhead became incarnate in order to save and redeem 
mankind. 

1. The Possibility of Incarnation. 

The incarnation is the central miracle of history. The 
historical reality of Jesus Christ does not need any proof. 
But the great burning question is : What think ye of Christ? 



103 

If He is divine-human, then the incarnation must be a his- 
torical fact. 

Every conceivable device has been tried to divest Christ 
of His supernatural character. The lowest theories are 
such as represented by Celsus, by Reimarus in the "Wolfen- 
buttel Fragments", by Voltaire and the French Illumination. 
In reality all of these theories imply that Christ was a de- 
ceiver, and His disciples deceived, or frauds. But such the- 
ories lose their force by the great work of Christ. He 
worked for the moral regeneration of the world. How 
could He be an immoral deceiver! Immoral men never 
could have invented a character like Christ's, and Christ 
could not be a victim of self-deception, because an analysis 
of His character and all His utterances give the impression 
of the purest truth, of a sober spirit, of the ideal man who 
must be more than a man, and of a character which is per- 
fectly normal and well balanced. 

Some objections may be termed rationalistic and others 
may be placed under the heading of the mythical tendencies. 
Among objections to the possibility of the incarnation we 
may notice the following. 

a. The idea of a God-man is self -contradictory. 

This is an objection raised by Schenkel. He claims that 
the same Ego cannot be at once God and man. This view 
claims that the being of God consists in Omnipotence and 
such attributes, but the being of man is limited by space 
and time. But the being of God does not consist in the 
relation of God to the creature, and His attributes cannot 
hinder Him to exercise the same in the form of man. His 
omnipresence is intensive and not extensive, and His om- 
nipotence must mean that He is able to adopt an existence 
that is divine-human. 

The act of self-renunciation is not in contradiction to 
deity; nor is it to personality. Self -consciousness is even 
existing in the embryonic condition. And in the case of 
the Son of Man, the human limited life could not exclude 



104 

the divine spirit-substance, because deity does not depend 
upon space, but is just as energetic if we think of the 
smallest space as of the universe. And as man is created 
in the image of God, there cannot be any valid objection to 
the fact that one mode of the divine essence exists in a 
complex nature. 

b. The idea is unnatural and, therefore, a myth. 

The rationalistic and mythical theories agree in denying 
the miraculous, but the former retains some of the his- 
torical facts, while the latter ascribes nearly all to myth- 
ology. 

The Gospel is evolved from Judaism and its expectation 
of a Messiah, but the main contents are unintentional fic- 
tions. Strauss is one of the main upholders of this view. 
We will give a brief synopsis of Strauss's "Life of Christ," 
and also of the views of Renan. 

The first book of Strauss appeared in 1835 and the popular 
edition in the year 1864. The standpoint is about the same 
in both editions, but in the latter he supposes more inten- 
tional invention than in the former, where he speaks of the 
unconscious fabrication of myths. He says that Christ 
impressed by word and spirit only and did not satisfy the 
craving for miracles. The apostles understood Him cor- 
rectly, but the evangelists lived in the second century, and 
from a want of historical sense they began, perhaps in good 
faith, to form legends which they thought would suit the 
Messiah-character of Christ. Miracles were demanded, and 
following the Old Testament description of miracles, the 
evangelists adorned Christ's work with miraculous wonders 
in order that He should not be less than Moses and Elias. 
The wonders of Christ were also magnified. In the second 
edition Strauss holds that these inventions of miracles were 
intentional, but in either case he explains them by his 
mythical theory. 

He claims that during the reign of Augustus Messianic 
expectations were prevalent among the Jews. In the time 



105 

of Tiberius the ascetic John, the Baptist, appeared. Strauss 
claims that Jesus became his disciple and later continued 
his work. Jesus hoped for a moral regeneration of the peo- 
ple, and that the kingdom of David should be restored. On 
account of the power of His personality many believed that 
He was the promised Messiah, and He finally thought so 
Himself. But He was persecuted by the Jews and died a 
martyr's death. His disciples in reading the old prophecies 
concluded that He was the Christ. They retained the idea, 
and in visiting His grave, they in their excited state, espe- 
cially the women, imagined that they saw visions and that 
He was living. The belief in His resurrection became the 
nucleus of other myths, and one miracle after the other was 
invented. When Christ, for instance, declared that His dis- 
ciples should be fishers of men, it was interpreted to mean 
the miraculous draught of fishes, and so on. From such 
ideas, legends and traditions the Gospels were later com- 
posed. 

Strauss held that the four Gospels were spurious, and that 
their miraculous contents were the fundamental proof of 
their mythical character. To him it is a naturalistic pre- 
supposition, not based upon historical investigation. He 
judges the Christian religion as unhistorical on account of 
its disagreement with modern philosophy. He is very bitter 
against the theologians and the clergy. Because the theolo- 
gians will not listen to him, he desires to enlighten the mas- 
ses and liberate them from the yoke of the Church. He 
says: "Whoever wishes to do away with parsons in the 
Church must first do away with the miracles in religion." 

But Strauss was behind his time in criticism and can 
hardly deserve the name of a critic. His judgment is entire- 
ly influenced by Pantheism. He did not believe in a person- 
al God, nor in the immortality of the soul and in the retri- 
bution after death. 

As to his mythical theory, he furnishes no proofs. It is 
generally accepted that myths belong to the childhood of 
nations. The childhood of nations is their prehistoric age. 



106 

The formation of a whole system of myths cannot take place 
in a historic age. The Gospels were composed in a historic 
age. If we compare the heathen myths, fables and fancies 
with the clear delineations in the Gospels, there is not the 
slightest resemblance. We feel in reading the Gospels that 
we are on a higher level and on historical ground. Myths 
bear a local impress adapted to the nations concerned, but 
the Gospels are universally human, not Jewish alone, but 
cosmopolitan. In Mythology we find no reliable chronology, 
but in the Gospels we find exact data in Roman and Jewish 
history. And the contents of the New Testament are of 
such an ideal character and so full of the profoundest wis- 
dom that even a Rousseau once admitted that such things 
could not be invented. Indeed it would have been impossible 
to invent Christ and to produce such addresses as He deliv- 
ered. And as to the miracles of Christ, if He did not perform 
them, why did not the living witnesses deny them? Why 
did not the priests, the Sadducees and the learned men of the 
time disprove them? They had the very best opportunities 
to do so and they had sufficient time before the witnesses 
died, but they made no serious attempt, because the evidence 
for the miracles and for Christ's resurrection was so clear 
that they were unable to refute it. And we can be sure that 
men of the Nicodemus, Gamaliel and Pauline type carefully 
investigated all facts. Why did not the unbelievers like Cel- 
sus, Julian and the rest make some real effort? If Christ- 
ianity was dangerous to the State, why did not the Govern- 
ment investigate instead of persecute? If the miracles had 
been inventions of deceivers they would have been fantastic, 
and Christ would surely have been pictured as performing 
before Herod and other curious men, but there is no attempt 
of show. It is not necessary, however, to continue the refu- 
tation of Strauss. He is dead and about forgotten. His 
book is buried under other rubbish which has accumulated 
after him. Let him be dead and buried as now very few 
would tire themselves by reading his prolix and tiresome 



107 

books, but he had to be noticed, because some of his heresies 
are repeated by other infidels. 

For the same reason we will also give a brief account of 
Kenan's "Life of Jesus." 

Renan's book presents to us the modern French infidelity, 
and it is marked by superficial frivolity, wanting in scientif- 
ic perception and true historical investigation, flippant in 
tone and garbling the most sacred life like a character in a 
novel. He sketched the book during a trip in Phoenicia and 
the Holy Land. Renan was impressed by the striking agree- 
ment between the descriptions of the New Testament and 
the nature around him, and it became to him as it were a new 
revelation that he was reading, a fifth Gospel, revealing to 
him Jesus, not as an abstract idea but as a being in concrete 
form. His vision resulted, however, not in a true history 
and recognition, but in a novel of seducing character. 

Renan looked upon Jesus as being a mere man. He con- 
siders the Gospels to be essentially genuine, but the seeming- 
ly supernatural he looks upon as legends, and claims also 
that the Evangelists contradict one another. According to 
Renan, Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus and He 
was born in Nazareth. He was educated under the influ- 
ence of the narrow conceptions of the time. As a child Jesus 
read not only the Old Testament, but was especially inter- 
ested in the apocryphal writings and in Daniel. He divides 
the life of Jesus into three periods : the first was the period 
of pure moral teaching, when He had a consciousness of 
God as no one before Him ever had. As an example of His 
preaching then we have the Sermon on the Mount. But He 
soon found out that He had to step down from this moral 
height, and in entering on His second period of life, He 
adopted the Messianic idea of His nation and thought that 
He Himself was the Messiah. He passed through the count- 
ry riding on a mule, followed by fishermen, women and 
children, and He was received with enthusiasm. Then fol- 
lows the fatal third period, when He antagonizes the Phari- 
sees and rulers and He seizes the cleansing scourge. He be- 



108 

comes a revolutionary and apocalyptic enthusiast. His 
manner is more dictatorial. He had a powerful mind and 
cured by this power many diseases. But He did not perform 
any real miracles. The raising of Lazarus was an illusion. 
Lazarus had been placed living in a tomb to come forth at 
the call of Jesus. Lazarus and his sisters were the chief 
actors in this deception, and it was done to hurry His accla- 
mation as Messiah. It is disgusting to read Kenan's pict- 
ures of Jesus when he speaks of His ravishing beauty, and 
how He was followed by fair women and some of a low type, 
but Renan never accuses Jesus of any immoral act. Never- 
thelesss it is a blasphemy, when Renan intimates a possibil- 
ity that "in that dark hour in Gethsemane, Jesus thought 
not only of the clear brooks in His native land, but also of 
the Galilean girls, whose love He renounced, in order to live 
only for His vocation!" Even rationalists were disgusted 
and asked Renan to be more decent. But his madness in 
writing as he did revealed his character and the unreliabil- 
ity of all his statements. Renan also denies the truth of the 
resurrection and ascribes that legend to the excited Mary 
Magdalene. 

The "Vie de Jesus" by Renan is not only an arbitrary 
treatment of history, but a book corrupted by low imagina- 
tion. It is a more arbitrary method than what Strauss 
used. The formation of legends is not delayed till after the 
death of Christ, but it is included in His life. Although he 
holds that the Gospels are essentially genuine, he resets the 
records according to his own fancies. According to Renan, 
Christ does not meet John the Baptist before the second per- 
iod, but according to the Gospels He met with him before the 
beginning of His public ministry. Other examples could be 
given to prove his arbitrariness. In his imaginary flights 
he endeavors to make his book interesting as a novel. So 
for example he says : "A naive doubt was sometimes raised 
among His disciples, but Jesus with a smile or a look si- 
lenced the objection." The Gospels speak of Christ's tears, 
but mention nothing concerning His smiles. Renan was 



109 

also very much influenced by pantheistic ideas and conse- 
quently he did not believe in a personal God. He speaks of 
a progressive development in the self-knowledge of God, and 
when he calls God the Father it is in the sense of Pantheism. 
It is very plain that neither Strauss nor Renan were men 
who cared for the real historical truth, and they give no 
proofs for their opinions, but only their own fancies. But 
unbelieving men are easily deceived. Otherwise it would be 
hard to understand how such authors could draw so many 
adherents. The only antidote against such deceptions is the 
constant reading of the life of Christ in the Gospels, because 
a faithful perusal will convince better than any arguments 
against Strauss and Renan, and the reading of the Bible 
may lead to experimental conviction. 

c. The incarnation is inconsistent with the fact that this 
planet is but one among many, and small among the rest. 

The Hegelian Pantheism cannot justly make this objec- 
tion, because it teaches that God becomes self-conscious in 
man, and in that case God, as the Absolute, would be limited 
to a small world. We do not need to discuss whether other 
worlds are inhabited by beings different from men, but it 
seems to be proved that our earth is the only one fitted for a 
dwelling place of such a being as man. Our planet is a 
world unique in the universe, and is just suitable to be a 
school of preparing the future beings in the Kingdom of God 
for their eternal duties. It has not been proved that the 
worlds are unlimited, neither do we know if the dwellers in 
other spheres need redemption or are capable of being re- 
deemed. The fallen angels are not objects of redemption, 
and to the "thrones or dominions or principalities or pow- 
ers" the manifold wisdom of God is made known according 
to Eph. 3 : 10. Under such circumstances it is not a problem 
why this little globe was made the scene of the greatest crea- 
tion and of the greatest revelation. The facts of Christian- 
ity are in perfect harmony with the best knowledge of na- 
ture. 



110 

2. The Historicity of Jesus. 

It may seem to be unnecessary to discusss this question, 
but the modern liberal theology and radical criticism have 
brought this issue to the front. The so-called historical Je- 
sus of liberal theology has become the target of skepticism. 
The liberal theology does not deny the existence of Jesus, 
but it has robbed Him of His supernatural character and 
explained His miracles as natural, because His disciples 
were ignorant of the higher natural laws, the power of mind 
and the subconscious phenomena, and, therefore, they 
ascribed to supernatural powers what was only a result of 
laws unknown to them, but known to Jesus and the wise 
men of the East. As the liberal theology divests Jesus of 
all divine powers, it paves the way for the skeptical ques- 
tion, whether He even had an actual historical existence. 
The modern destructive criticism has made an attempt to 
place the Bible on the same level with other human produc- 
tions. The denial of the existence of Christ becomes to such 
critics an easy step. Since the beginning of this century 
doubts about the existence of Jesus have been advanced by 
many, especially in Germany. Among the foremost cham- 
pions for this skepticism may be mentioned Arthur Drews 
in Karlsruhe, who published his Christusmythe in 1909. De- 
bates on the question have been held in Berlin and other 
places, and the orthodox view was at these debates ably de- 
fended by prominent New Testament scholars. The details 
of this skepticism vary. Drews says that before the Jesus 
of the Gospels there existed a belief among Jewish sects 
about a Jesus-god, and there was a cult in which were blend- 
ed old Jewish apocalyptic ideas and heathen notions con- 
cerning a dying and rising saviour. The Jesus in the Gos- 
pels is not an actual man, but a myth, and the principal 
doctrines, as those of the Lord's death and resurrection, the 
sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, were bor- 
rowed from the cult of the Jesus-god. According to Drews 
it is not a historical Jesus which explains Christianity, but 



Ill 

the Christ-idea, and this idea of the divine humanity makes 
it possible to revitalize Christianity. It seems that such 
opinions as held by Drews hardly need to be answered, be- 
cause such speculations refute themselves. And to a Christ- 
ian it looks incomprehensible that any one will accept such 
ideas in preference to the history of the New Testament. 
Even if the New Testament was only an ordinary history, it 
deserves the confidence of all lovers of truth as it has stood 
the test of ages. And it is rational to believe the testimonies 
of those witnesses, who lived at the rise and early extension 
of Christianity. 

Many pamphlets and articles have been issued against the 
views of Drews and his sympathisers. Even heterodox crit- 
ics and Jews have defended the historical Jesus. If the New 
Testament, even considered as ordinary literature, can be 
treated as Drews does, how can we rely upon any ancient 
history? There is no history so well supported as the New 
Testament history. The deniers of the existence of Jesus 
have failed to present substantial proofs for their opinions. 
Their quotations from Epiphanius do not avail as proofs, be- 
cause his speculations concerning the pre-Christian Nazar- 
ees do not prove that Epiphanius had any idea to connect 
Christianity with the Jewish Nazarite heresy. We cannot 
enter into details, but we will only say, that the radicals 
found support from the historical mistake of Epiphanius in 
placing the birth of Jesus in the time of Alexander Jannaeus 
for dogmatical reasons, that Alexander was both king and 
priest, but otherwise Epiphanius claims that Jesus was born 
in the reign of Augustus. The radicals prove this lack of 
good arguments, when they rely so much upon the evident 
blunders of Epiphanius, and they know that in fact Epi- 
phanius desired to find a basis for his orthodoxy. It is also 
a proof of a weak case, when the radicals accept the mistakes 
of Epiphanius rather than to believe the well attested his- 
torical Gospels. Not even the non-canonical Jewish writ- 
ings contain any mention of a pre-Christian Jesus. 

The critics have even sought support in Hippolytus, but 



112 

he refers to a heretical Christian sect and not to a pre- 
Christian. It is also remarkable that in the year 1482 a copy 
of the Refutation of heresies by Hippolytus was found in a 
library at Mount Athos. Hippolytus lived in the third cen- 
tury, was a bishop near Rome and recognized for orthodoxy. 
In his book he refers to every book in the New Testament, 
and his testimony is drawn in a direct line from the last of 
the apostles. 

In the writings of Philo and Josephus there is nothing 
said in regard to the worship of a special cult-God by the 
sects. The lately published "Documents of Jewish Sectar- 
ies" by Schechter (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910) do not 
support the view that a cult-god was worshiped. The 
whole idea of a pre-Christian Jesus as the connecting link 
for the origin of the Christian religion is only an hypothe- 
sis, and it is like building a house on the sand instead of 
building on the rock of the sure historical foundation. 

Many doubters demand extra-Biblical testimony for the 
historicity of Jesus, as if such evidence would prove more 
than the New Testament. This is unreasonable, because we 
can hardly expect that the literature of the time near 
Christ's life on earth could take notice of the religious move- 
ments among the Jews. Time was required to make the im- 
portance of the Christian movement known, and the Apos- 
tles did not hurry in writing memoirs. The haughty men of 
Rome would pay little attention to a religious movement in 
Palestine, as long as it did not trouble the interests of the 
Roman empire ; and still there must have been some reports 
circulating, even reaching Rome. Pilate was bound to make 
some reports, whatever may be the opinion of the so-called 
"Acts of Pilate". Even if these reports, accredited to Pi- 
late, have been re-edited, there must be some foundation for 
the claim that there was an original. Members of the Her- 
odian family brought probably information to Rome. If the 
existence of Jesus had been a myth, the Jewish rulers would 
have done their best to let that be known, but no one ever 
made an attempt. Josephus, who might have had political 



113 

reasons for denying the existence of Jesus, mentions Him 
twice in his Antiquities. Speaking of the time of Pilate he 
says : "At this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if it, indeed, is 
proper to call Him a man. For He was a doer of wonderful 
works, a teacher of men who receive the truth gladly, and 
He won to Himself both many Jews and many Greeks. This 
was the Christ. And when Pilate, on the indictment of the 
chief men among us, sentenced Him to crucifixion, those 
who loved Him at first did not cease loving Him ; for He ap- 
peared to them alive again the third day as indeed the di- 
vine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other 
wonders concerning Him. And even to this day the race of 
Christians named from Him is not extinct." According to 
Berendts' work on the Slavonic version of the Jewish war 
(Leipzig, 1906) Josephus had spoken of Jesus several times, 
but had excluded these passages in the Roman version 
for divers evident reasons. Seneca must have heard about 
Christ, and the emperor Nero by report, and, anyway, the 
Christians were known to Nero; his persecutions of them 
proves that conclusively. No one can deny the persecutions 
of the Christians by Nero. According to Tacitus, the Christ- 
ians whom Nero persecuted were named after Christ, and he 
mentions that Christ had been put to death by Pilate in the 
reign of Tiberius. This is very clear extra-Biblical evi- 
dence. Clement of Rome bears clear testimony for the exist- 
ence of Jesus. Governor Pliny of Bithynia reported to Tra- 
jan concerning the Christians and their beliefs. We can be 
assured that Justin the Martyr would never have accepted 
Christianity, if he had not been absolutely convinced that 
Christ had lived on earth. All the apostolical fathers testi- 
fied to the existence of Christ, and they would not have done 
it if they had not been sure about it. They lived at a time 
when investigations were easy. No enemy of Christianity 
denied the historicity of Jesus, but some Gnostics, as Mar- 
cion, doubted if the body of Christ was really human. For 
that reason partly Tertullian made investigations in Roman 
archives as to possible reports. Tertullian in his contro- 



114 

versy with Marcion uses these words : "And lastly His enrol- 
ment in the census of Augustus — that most faithful wit- 
ness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives in Rome." 
(Adv. Marcion, Lib. 4, chap. 7) . In his treatise against the 
Jews he writes : "For He was from the native soil of Beth- 
lehem, and from the house of David ; as among the Romans 
Mary is described in the census, of whom Christ is born" 
(Adv. Jud. chap. 9). We may be absolutely sure that we 
can trust the testimony of Tertullian and his investigations. 
He would not have taken any chances in his research, be- 
cause his opponents would have access to the same archives. 
Should we then accept the hypothesis of modern infidels and 
reject the evidence of Tertullian? No ! It is rational to be- 
lieve Tertullian and the fathers of old as over against the 
modernists, who in cases like this have no archives to con- 
sult but their own dream-books of speculation. 

But the Bible contains the absolute testimony ; even as a 
book of literature, but holding the Bible to be inspired, the 
proofs become superlative. The New Testament books were 
all written in the first century. It is not necessary to dis- 
cuss in this connection the different views as to years of com- 
position, when we know that before the close of the first cen- 
tury the New Testament was complete. John was the last 
writer. Paul wrote all his letters, or epistles, before the end 
of the year 68. The synoptic Gospels must have been writ- 
ten before the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew, John 
and Peter were eye-witnesses and could, therefore, give a 
first-hand testimony. Mark was the interpreter of Peter, 
and Luke was guided by Paul ; besides, Luke stood in touch 
with the rest, and being also an educated man he made very 
careful research. According to the prologue to his Gospel 
we find that he was a very painstaking author. The critics 
have had a good deal of trouble in regard to John as to his 
Logos-doctrine and ability to remember the addresses of Je- 
sus. Many explanations have been offered. But why should 
he have been ignorant of the Logos-idea ? He had sufficient 
time to study and observe, not writing his Gospel before the 



115 

last decade of the first century. And as to his retentive 
memory he may have been especially gifted. Some have 
pointed to the free use of the oratio directa, because he 
thought in Hebrew and wrote in Greek, the Hebrew being 
foreign to indirect speech, and that John was compelled to 
write as if he were giving the very words. But even if it 
was a free rendering in the form of direct address, the real 
contents were not forgotten. As believers in revelation and 
inspiration we need not worry about his faculty of remem- 
bering. It is in the Gospel of John that we read concerning 
the promise of the Spirit, and Christ distinctly says that the 
Spirit would remind the disciples of what He had said. We 
quote John 14 : 26 : "But the Comforter, even the Holy Spir- 
it, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you 
all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said 
unto you." The Gospels ought to convince every reasonable 
reader that Christ actually existed, and that He existed so 
really that He became the turning point in history. And the 
other writings bear the same testimony. The epistles of 
Paul, most of them accepted by the critics, surely prove the 
historicity of Jesus. The conversion of Paul would be inex- 
plicable if Christ had not existed, and the character of Paul 
proves beyond doubt the truth of his statements. 

3. The Divinity of Christ. 

It is not necessary to present arguments for the ideal 
manhood of Christ, as nearly all thinkers who accept His 
historicity recognize Him as the ideal man. But proofs may 
be necessary for His divinity, because many doubters have 
been influenced by deistical and pantheistic views. We need 
not, however, refute Deism and Pantheism in this connec- 
tion, but we refer the reader to previous notices and to the 
literature on the subject. 

Besides the ordinary dogmatic proofs, there is one very 
forcible argument in the testimony of Christ Himself. Even 
if the Bible was not an inspired book, this argument would 
stand by itself, because the Bible must be recognized as re- 



116 

liable literature, but the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures 
makes this proof so much stronger. Let us quote some of 
the passages in which Christ declares His divinity. "Jesus 
said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abra- 
ham was, I am/ " John 8 : 58. "I and the Father are one," 
John 10:30. "Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us the Fa- 
ther, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been 
so long time with you and dost thou not know me, Philip ? 
He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; how sayest thou, 
Show us the Father? John 14: 8—9. "And now, Father, 
glorify Thou me with Thine own self with the glory which I 
had with Thee before the world was," John 17 : 5. But it is 
not necessary to quote all the passages. We call special at- 
tention to Matt. 26 : 63, 64, where Christ under oath aff irms 
His divinity. When we consider His teaching in regard to 
swearing, and how He in this instance submits to legal au- 
thority in swearing on the demand of the High Priest, His 
oath as to His divinity becomes absolute proof. He could 
not tell a falsehood, being sinless. An analysis of His char- 
acter manifests a being of the greatest perfection. A study 
of His life proves that He was normal, well balanced and 
perfectly sane. All His utterances contained the highest 
wisdom and of a kind which could not originate in any mere 
human mind. 

He could not have been deceived as to His nature for the 
following reasons : 

He was virtually fully self-conscious of His divinity at 
twelve years of age, and when He again appeared publicly 
there is nothing to show that He even wavered in His con- 
sciousness of His divinity. 

If He had been self-deceived, He would have taken upon 
Himself the role of the Messiah according to the prevailing 
idea or type. An ordinary man could not have conceived of 
the true type and clung to it over against the general opin- 
ion. The Holy Scriptures testify to the fact that He, in all 
kinds of proposals to become a political Messiah, resisted 
most decidedly. His true conception, His unselfish work, 



117 

His truthfulness on every occasion and His sublime doc- 
trines prove that He was neither deceived nor a deceiver. 
When such a man claims to be the Son of God, His very 
words attest the great fact. 

It is not necessary to present all the testimonies in the 
Bible, because they are familiar to every Bible-reader. And 
the next section, which contains the proofs of His resurrec- 
tion from the dead, is also one of the most convincing argu- 
ments for His divine nature. 

§ 16. THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
1. General Observations. 

The fact of the resurrection of Christ is a fundamental 
doctrine of Christianity and is thus considered by Paul. 
Compare 1 Cor. 15. The conversion and character of Paul 
give his testimony the highest place. The writings of Paul 
prove conclusively that he had investigated the facts and 
was convinced himself that Christ had arisen from the dead. 

The credibility of the Gospel historians respecting com- 
mon facts is acknowledged by adversaries. It is admitted by 
nearly all that the evidence for the death of Christ upon the 
cross is very clear. The Roman centurion testified to His 
death. Pilate, who was intimidated by fear of being ac- 
cused, would take the greatest pains that Christ was not 
taken from the cross before He was really dead. The enemies 
of Christ would also take good care that He was not removed 
before death. The Chief Priests and Pharisees were also 
watching, and said to Pilate: "Sir, we remember that this 
deceiver said when he was yet alive: 'After three days I 
will rise again.' " They were fully persuaded that He was 
dead and demanded a watch in order that His body should 
not be stolen. Every precaution was taken. None of the 
watch deserted the post while the body was in the grave. 
There were sixty soldiers as watch. But early in the morn- 
ing of Easter day, the body was missing. The behavior 
of the soldiers, the bribe given, and the silence of the Jews, 



118 

who never refuted or contradicted the disciples, prove that 
Christ's body was not stolen. And the timid disciples could 
not have stolen the body, if we consider all the circumstan- 
ces. 

The council never charged the disciples with the crime of 
abduction, but only forbade them to preach the resurrection. 
The rulers were evidently convinced that Christ had arisen 
from the dead. 

Some have objected that Christ should have shown Him- 
self to His enemies, but such a revelation would not have 
strengthened the testimony. His previous miracles had 
been misinterpreted and His raising of Lazarus had even 
stimulated their enmity. Even if He had revealed Himself 
to His enemies the modern deniers of the resurrection would 
not have been convinced. The cause of Christianity would 
not have been benefited by such a manifestation and just 
as little as Christ would have been benefited by performing 
miracles before Herod. 

Consider further the fact that Christ revealed Himself to 
many witnesses and at different times. He revealed Him- 
self at least eleven times, and once to above five hundred 
persons. It is impossible that so many could have been mis- 
taken. This is even more evident when we consider the dif- 
ferent circumstances under which He appeared. We should 
also notice that He always appeared during the day or in the 
evening, never during midnight, and every opportunity was 
given to make sure that it was He Himself. 

The disciples were not convinced by any over-powering 
influence, but were very slow in believing. But during forty 
days they received ample testimonies, and then we must add 
to this the revelation to St. Paul. He could not have been 
deceived. The testimony of St. Paul becomes the climax in 
the evidence and confirms the preceding. Consider his 
powerful argument in 1 Cor. 15, and how he calls attention 
to the fact that among the above live hundred brethren, who 
saw Christ risen, the greater number lived when he wrote 



119 

the epistle. It was, therefore, easy to prove the case by liv- 
ing witnesses. 

Observe the tribunals before which they stood and the 
great multitudes of people who had a chance to examine 
their testimonies. If it had been a fraud, the detection 
would have been sure. 

The time of the testimony is also in evidence. There was 
no delay. The place of the first testimony also confirms the 
evidence. 

Their motive was also pure. It was not to acquire fame, 
riches, and worldly success. And if Jesus Christ did not 
arise from the dead, it is impossible to account for the 
striking contrast between their former conduct and their 
courage after their conviction in regard to His resurrection. 

2. The Story of the Resurrection Bears the Stamp of 

Truth. 

If we compare the Gospel narratives with the statements 
of St. Paul, the appearances of Christ probably took place 
in the following order : 

1) Mary Magdalene sees the Lord first, returning to the 
grave the second time, after having told Peter and John 
about the empty grave. 

2) The other women in returning from the grave meet 
the Lord. 

3) The Lord appears to Peter the same day. 

4) In the evening He appears to two disciples on their 
way to Emmaus, 

5) and after this to the ten apostles in Jerusalem. 

6) On the following Sunday He appears to the apostles, 
Thomas being present. 

7) At the lake of Tiberias He appeared to seven disciples. 

8) He revealed Himself on a mountain in Galilee to the 
eleven and to the 500 mentioned in 1 Cor. 15 : 7. 

9) The special appearance to James. 

10) The final appearance on the Mount of Olives at the As- 
cension. 



120 

11) Lastly He revealed Himself to Paul. 
When we read these narratives, the conviction grows that 
they are true, and all objections can be answered to satisfy 
any reasonable mind. Strauss objects that the appearance 
at the lake of Tiberias, according to John, was the third, but 
John only counted the appearances among assembled disci- 
ples, and only two such had preceded. Some claim that 
there is a contradiction between Luke in his Gospel and in 
the Acts, but Luke explains it more fully in the Acts. In 
his Gospel he collates the most important of our Lord's last 
utterances, without regard to time, but besides his more 
complete statement later we have also the narrative of the 
other evangelists. Others object that the direction was to 
go to Galilee to see Him there, but He revealed Himself first 
in Jerusalem, which is really no contradiction, because the 
appearances in Galilee were for all the followers and did not 
preclude appearances before the inner circle of the disciples. 
First came the short appearances in Jerusalem to re-estab- 
lish the courage of His disciples, and when they had reached 
a firm conviction there followed the longer appearances and 
communications. It is also evident that the evangelists told 
a true story from their way of telling it, as there is no at- 
tempt to picture Him in the manner of legends, but all is 
naturally described in a historical way. They could not have 
invented the story of the resurrection, because no human 
mind would have been able to conceive of anything so un- 
heard of before. Deception was impossible, and would have 
been exposed immediately. The resurrection was such a 
real fact, that the enemies of Christ were unable to contra- 
dict it. In fact many of them were convinced that He was 
risen by the testimony of the soldiers. Otherwise they 
would not have bribed the soldiers to tell a different story. 
If the soldiers were awake, they could easily have hindered 
the stealing of the body, and as they were sixty in number, 
it is unlikely that all slept. The disciples would not have 
dared to approach the grave for such a purpose, and what 
would be the gain, when their Lord rested in a tomb of a 



121 

rich man? If the body had been stolen the soldiers could 
easily have found it, and the disciples would have been ar- 
rested. But no steps were taken in such a direction, because 
the Sanhedrin knew that Christ was risen, or at least feared 
it. And when the resurrection was openly preached in Jeru- 
salem, why did not the Sanhedrin disprove the story ? They 
could not; otherwise they surely would have done it, but 
there were too many living witnesses to testify to the fact 
of the resurrection, and there might have been soldiers who 
on oath would have told the truth. Even when Paul wrote 
the first epistle to the Corinthians, he calls attention to the 
fact that many still lived who had seen Christ after His 
resurrection. The Sanhedrin had ample time to disprove 
the resurrection, but they never did. It is certain that Paul 
was sure that the living witnesses were available. Besides 
he had seen the risen Christ himself. 

In the Acts of the Apostles we find a threefold history of 
Paul's conversion, chap. 9 : 1—30, 22 : 1—21, 26 : 4—23. In 
the two latter Paul himself relates his own life-story. Crit- 
ics have called attention to the minor variations in these 
accounts, but Luke would surely have noticed these varia- 
tions if they had been contradictions, as he was a very care- 
ful writer and an educated man. But what are the differen- 
ces? The communication which in chapters 9 and 22 is 
made by the Lord through Ananias, is connected to the 
words of the Lord Himself in chapter 26, but it only proves 
the condensation of the narrative, and even the critic Baur 
finally withdraws his objection. Further, in chapter 9: 7 
the companions of Paul are said to hear without seeing; in 
chapter 22 it is stated that they saw without hearing. This 
is a formally seeming contradiction, but is easily explained, 
if we consider that the companions had only a general sen- 
suous impression, without clearly seeing the figure or dis- 
tinctly distinguishing the words. They heard the voice, but 
not the articulated words. In the usage of St. Paul, "hear" 
sometimes means "understand" as in 1 Cor. 14: 2. When 
critics pick at such easily explained differences, it proves 



122 

their animus. If the old classic writings should be treated 
thus, what would be the result? There is no book which is 
so unreasonably treated as the Bible. Even Lessing admits 
that critics are unreasonable in regard to the Bible. 

If we compare the utterances of St. Paul in his epistles, it 
is clear that the appearance of Christ was not a vision, but 
an actual bodily revelation. It is sufficient to read 1 Cor. 
15:8: "Last of all, He was seen by me also", and 1 Cor. 9 : 
1 : "Am I not an apostle ? Have I not seen our Lord Jesus 
Christ?" In 2 Cor. 12: 1 he relates a vision, and the differ- 
ence in the relation is apparent to every unbiased reader. It 
is also clear that this vision did not depend upon his nerv- 
ous condition, but was a real vision by the power of God. 

We have no reason to doubt that Paul saw with his own 
eyes Christ in His resurrection-body. Paul was so con- 
vinced that he based his theology on the great fact of the 
resurrection of Christ. We are all familiar with his argu- 
ments in 1 Cor. 15 and elsewhere. The testimony of St. Paul 
becomes, therefore, the climax in the arguments for the re- 
surrection. 

There is no historical event as well substantiated as the 
resurrection of Christ. And the effects of this fact have 
been so mighty that they would be incomprehensible, if the 
basic cause was not true. The arguments for this historical 
truth will convince all who weigh proofs impartially. And 
the historical records cannot be doubted. As we know, even 
Baur recognized the leading epistles of Paul as genuine. 
The evidence from them is conclusive. 

3. The Anti-Resurrection Theories. 

1) The swoon theory. 

This theory implies that Jesus was not really dead, and 
that after a temporary loss of consciousness He revived and 
appeared to His disciples. But the arguments previously 
stated proved that He was actually dead. The fourth Gos- 
pel states that His side was pierced by the unerring spear 



123 

of the soldier. Even Strauss proves that the swoon theory 
is impossible. 

2) The vision theory. 

The appearances were only subjective, due to an excited 
state of mind. All the appearances were hallucinations. 
The disciples imagined that they saw Christ. Mary Magda- 
lene first saw such a vision in an excited state of mind. 
Strauss claims that the appearance to St. Paul was only a 
vision and that he was disposed to ecstatic conditions. But 
he says that time was needed to develop the state of visions. 
The Bible states, however, that the first appearances oc- 
curred even within three days after the crucifixion. And 
if we consider how troubled the disciples were, they were 
not in a condition suitable for subjective visions. Nor is it 
likely that so many different persons would have such vis- 
ions. Furthermore, if we reflect upon the character of St. 
Paul, he was too practical a man to be influenced by any- 
thing which was not real. The appearance on the way to 
Damascus is wanting in the chief characteristics of a vision. 
There is neither the physical pre-condition nor the consti- 
tution, nor the predisposition, which pertains to the patho- 
logically morbid nature of a visionary. The whole account 
proves that the appearance was external and real. The sud- 
den transformation of Paul's character and his whole life 
and labors prove the objective fact, that the risen Christ 
appeared to him on the way to Damascus. 

3) The spiritual telegram theory. 

This theory is taught by Keim. His idea was that Jesus, 
living in spirit, produced the manifestations which the dis- 
ciples took for bona fide appearances; to give them assur- 
ance that He still lived, Christ sends a series of spiritual 
telegrams from heaven to let the disciples know that all is 
well. But such a telegram, producing the body of Christ in 
appearance, is as much a miracle as the rising of the dead 
body. It simply means a disbelief in the resurrection of a 



124 

body. If the resurrection be an unreality, why send mes- 
sages that would be misleading? If Christ was even but an 
ideal man, why should He induce the apostles, and through 
them the whole Church, to believe a lie? This is a bastard 
supernaturalism even more objectionable to unbelievers than 
the supernaturalism of the Catholic creed. 

In rejecting the absurd theory of Keim, we will call atten- 
tion to a new theory which may be brought forward by stu- 
dents of abnormal psychology, and we should anticipate pos- 
sible arguments from such a source. The modern revival 
of the study of Telepathy and Clairvoyance may mislead 
some students of such studies to believe that the appearan- 
ces of Christ may be explained by telepathy. Nothing would 
be gained by denying the substantiated facts of telepathy, 
although there are scientists who dispute the phenomena of 
telepathy. But many experiments have been made which 
prove beyond a doubt that telepathy cannot be ignored. No 
one would deny the facts of hypnotism and clairvoyance. 
Books have been published on telepathy, containing verified 
experiences and experiments. And any one sufficiently in- 
terested may experiment himself. The principle is the same 
as in wireless telegraphy, but in telepathy the instrument, or 
battery, is the brain and the operator is the mind. In tele- 
pathy the success of dispatching and receiving depends on 
the dynamic power of the brain and the mind. In Apolo- 
getics we cannot explain the working of the science, or men- 
tion verified experiments, but only call attention to it. Even 
if a person is not an experimenter, he is apt to receive, not 
only messages in deep impressions, but he may also see an 
object or a person. Many trustworthy persons have had 
such experiences. Thought-messages may be received from 
long distances, and also sent to any distance. This is the 
reason, why some may claim that the appearances of Christ 
were only His thought-waves of such strength as to produce 
both the words and His figure. 

But it can be proved both by the laws of telepathy and the 
Biblical record that telepathy never can explain the appear- 



125 

ances of the risen Saviour. Although we in one of the escat- 
ological sections again will call attention to telepathy over 
against the alleged appearances of dead persons through 
mediums, we will say in this connection that appearances 
through telepathy are only momentary and the messages 
only mental. The figure of the person appears a moment and 
then vanishes. But the New Testament records prove that 
Christ showed Himself for a longer period, walked with His 
disciples, talked with them, answered questions, ate with 
them, allowed them to touch Him, and at one occasion He 
said: "Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings 
arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I 
myself : handle me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones, as ye behold me having." Add to this that He ap- 
peared to over 500 at one time and talked for a long while. 
All this is beyond the power of telepathy. We need not dis- 
cuss this further, as the appearances of Christ were bodily 
and often repeated. 

4) Martineau's theory. 

According to this the Christophanies had no existence for 
the first disciples, but the belief arose later. The disciples 
only believed that Christ still lived and would come again to 
fulfill His promises. They said that they had seen Jesus only 
to impress the fact of His continued life. 

But this theory does not give a true account of the experi- 
ence of the disciples, and outrageously misinterprets plain 
historical narratives. If history can be treated thus, what 
remains then ? And it imputes to the early disciples a pagan 
conception of the life hereafter. But the faith of the Jew 
implied more than immortality of the soul. And the true 
order of causality is converted in saying that the faith in 
the continued existence of Jesus produced the idea of bodily 
visions, and not such visions the faith. The character of the 
disciples forbid us to believe that they would by symbolic 
words teach a pious fraud. 

It is, therefore, evident that all the modern naturalistic 



126 

attempts to explain away the resurrection have turned out 
as the greatest failures. 

When, therefore, the resurrection of Christ is a fact, the 
divinity is also proved, and the facts of Christianity have a 
substantial foundation. 

§ 17. THE WORK OF THE SAVIOUR. 

This great work culminated in vicarious atonement, and 
His work continues in His intercession as High Priest and 
will be completed in the final redemption. 

1. The Gospel of Christ's Death Is the Only Satis- 
factory Scheme of Salvation. 

The Anti-Theistic philosophies, which all deny the per- 
sonality of God and the need of redemption in the true sense, 
cannot ignore the disharmony in the world. The awful fact 
of sin presses itself more or less upon every thinking mind. 
The remedies offered are a testimony to the crying need of 
salvation. But these philosophies only offer culture in liter- 
ature, art, science, etc., but the disease has not been cured. 
Pantheism has failed utterly to cope with sin. This is true 
in regard to the best forms of German Pantheism and also 
in reference to the literary Pantheism of a Carlyle. The old 
Deists and Rationalists tried the moral scheme, but even if 
this is a higher method, this scheme of self -redemption has 
also failed to satisfy an awakened conscience. 

And if we examine the ethnic religions, we all realize 
their utter failure to solve the problems of salvation and re- 
demption. The wheels of Juggernaut, all kinds of human 
sacrifices, self-inflicted tortures, immoral ceremonies, etc., 
mark the way of the attempts to devise a scheme of self-re- 
demption. But all these schemes prove the deep-felt need of 
salvation. In comparison with these the way of salvation in 
the Christian Church stands out as a clear and shining light 
on the road to heaven. The cross of Calvary proves itself 
to be God's solution of the great problem. By Christianity 



127 

we learn God's justice and love in a way that satisfies the 
human heart in life and death. Only Christianity teaches 
the true doctrine of vicarious atonement. 

2. The Vicarious Atonement. 

The vicarious atonement is one of the fundamental doc- 
trines of true Christianity. A denial of this doctrine under- 
mines the foundation of the Christian faith. Some claim 
that the theory of the atonement is not the most important, 
but that we trust the efficacy of Christ's death to save us, 
when we believe in Him. There may be, of course, persons, 
who never will be able to understand all the underlying theo- 
logical arguments in the definition of the doctrine, but it is 
another thing knowingly to deny the teachings of the Bible. 
Opponents hold that it depends upon different interpreta- 
tions, but orthodox Christianity has always held the doctrine 
of vicarious atonement in some form or another. It does 
not belong to Apologetics to present the dogmatic discussions, 
but we cannot wholly pass by or ignore the attacks against 
the accepted Biblical doctrine. This becomes more evident, 
when we consider that the rejection of vicarious atonement 
implies logically the denial of the divinity of Christ. Some 
do not admit this interrelation of the two leading doctrines, 
but it is impossible to understand the atonement correctly, 
if Christ was not divine-human. The Socinians were logical 
in their deductions, because, having rejected the divinity of 
Christ, they also rejected the doctrine of vicarious atone- 
ment. And yet we find many who reject the vicarious atone- 
ment, but believe in the divinity of Christ. 

The so-called Moral Theory is held by many. The His- 
tory of Dogmas relates the development of this theory from 
the time of Abelard. Its most destructive form appeared in 
Socinianism and modern Unitarianism. The theological 
school of Ritschl and others might be noticed. To show how 
far in irrelevancy some argue, we will quote Martineau: 
"How is the alleged immorality of letting off the sinner 
mended by the added crime of penalty crushing the sinless ? 



128 

Of what man — of what angel — could such a thing be re- 
ported, without raising a cry of indignant shame from the 
universal human heart? What should we think of a judge 
who should discharge the felons from the prisons of a city 
because some generous citizen offered himself to the execu- 
tioner instead?" But such a question ignores that Christ 
was divine and not only a noble citizen, and that therefore 
He could inflict upon Himself the suffering which He other- 
wise had been compelled to inflict upon us. We meet the 
same objection in the tenets of Socinianism. 

As we in practical life often must contend against the 
views of Socinians, we will present some arguments against 
them and related views. According to these views satisfac- 
tion is not necessary, as God can forgive sins without vicar- 
ious atonement ; guilt, punishment and merit cannot be trans- 
ferred from one party to another; it would be an injustice, 
if the innocent should suffer for the guilty; Christ could not 
suffer eternal punishment ; if Christ suffered and died for all, 
no one should suffer and die ; Christ was not our representa- 
tive to appease the wrath of God, but God's representative 
to take away our sins and prove to us that God is love ; God 
was, therefore, not the object of reconciliation, but mankind 
was the object of reconciliation ; the death of Christ occurred 
partly to convince us in regard to the love of God that we 
may become reconciled to Him, and the death of Christ was 
really a martyr's death. 

The standpoint of such opinions proves in the first place 
a misunderstanding of the attributes of God. God is immu- 
table in all His attributes, immutable in love and holiness, 
each attribute works immutably according to its essential 
laws, and one attribute cannot change the other, but we ex- 
perience them according to the relation in which we stand. 
We may illustrate from natural laws. The sun is our life- 
preserver and destroyer according to the manner in which 
we expose ourselves. If we expose ourselves to the wrath of 
God, we must suffer the consequences. By nature mankind 
was in such a relation, but God's love provided a way out of 



129 

it by which our relation could be changed. God's Justice had 
to be satisfied, and man was unable to do it, and God's Love 
had to be satisfied, and none but God Himself could do both. 
God does nothing unnecessary. If God could have saved us 
without the vicarious death of our Saviour, He would have 
done it, but there was evidently no other way. He had no 
pleasure in the death of Christ except on the ground that it 
was the only way to satisfy both His love and justice. It 
was a sacrifice on His part to send His Son to suffer in our 
stead. The objection that it was unjust to inflict suffering 
on the innocent Christ has no meaning, when we consider 
that Christ was God Himself, as in Him dwelt the whole 
essence of the Godhead, He being the second hypostatis in the 
Trinity, and for that reason He was interested in the same 
way as the Father and the Holy Spirit. The objection would 
have weight if Christ was only human. But He is God and 
also man, and, therefore, He is the representative of both 
parties. No ordinary human illustrations can consequently 
be adapted to the case. He was both the subject and the 
object in the act of atonement. The objection that Christ 
did not suffer eternal punishment is also a misconception, 
because He is eternal in His being, and eternity is not ana- 
logical with time. The sufferings of the condemned will be 
eternal in duration, not as an atonement, but as a conse- 
quence of their state and condition. It is self-evident that 
they cannot attain reconciliation by eternal sufferings, be- 
cause then their sufferings would not be eternal in duration, 
and as they had a beginning, their sufferings would not be 
eternal, anyway, from the common conception of eternity. 
But Christ suffered all that was implied in the actual re- 
quirements of eternal punishments. The satisfaction did 
not depend upon the time-duration, but upon the real suifer- 
ing of hell by the person, who is eternal in His being. Man 
is unable to fulfill the condition, but man can escape hell by 
affiliating with Christ in the manner God has provided. And 
the objection that, if Christ died for all, then no one should 
die and suffer, ignores the fact of the necessary moral condi- 



130 

tion of faith. The objection implies also a mathematical 
conception, based on illustrations, but we should never build 
a doctrine on illustrations which only throw light on certain 
points as a help for the understanding. We cannot in this 
case apply commercial laws, which sometimes allow substi- 
tution even independently of the debtor. Although Christ 
was a ransom for all, it was not a money-affair, but an act 
in the moral sphere, where the party concerned must iden- 
tify himself by the requirements, which here mean faith in 
Christ as a necessary appropriation of Christ's work. The 
full explanation of the doctrine belongs to Dogmatics. 

But it is clear that Christianity offers the best solution of 
salvation. No man could have invented such a way. We 
have the best doctrine of reconciliation, containing satis- 
faction and expiation, or atonement, and in the active and 
passive obedience of Christ a sure foundation for the remis- 
sion of sins and the imputation of the acquired righteous- 
ness of Christ. On account of the objective reconciliation 
we may become personally reconciled to God or justified by 
faith in Christ. 

The moral theory of the atonement as presented by Bush- 
nell and others cannot compare with the evangelical theory 
of vicarious atonement, and the good points that may be 
found in the Moral theory are also found in the orthodox 
theory. According to the Moral theory the event on Calvary 
becomes like a set stage, where the scenes merely operate 
upon the emotions of men, to convince men that sin is terri- 
ble, and that sin may be removed if the sinner is influenced 
by the sufferings of Christ, who by His death proves the love 
of God. The Moral theory only emphasizes the subjective ef- 
fect of the tragedy on Golgotha. But God would never have 
sent His Son to suffer in the interest of an emotional effect. 
When a sinner awakens to the real conception of sin and 
feels the burden of guilt, the Moral theory will not satisfy. 
In the hour of earnest desire to be saved, the burning ques- 
tion of salvation is only satisfactorily answered by the im- 
port of the vicarious death of Christ. The best proof is the 
test and experience. 



131 

3. Christianity Is the Work of a Living Christ and Is 
the Best Religion and the Only Worthy 

of the Name. 

The power of personality in religion has always been con- 
sidered as a paramount influence. Most religions claim 
a personal founder, but no religion, except Christianity and 
Judaism, has a living founder. The founders of the other 
religions are either mythological or dead, exercising no di- 
rect present influence, but the Founder of the Christian 
religion is a risen Saviour, who is constantly leading and 
directing. 

We will present the following points in mere outline to 
show the superiority of Christianity: 

a. Christianity is the work of a living Christ, who is the 
Light of the world. 

Among the nations of the world Christ is not the only 
claimant to lordship. The wide prevalence of Buddhism, 
Mohammedanism and Confucianism seems to go against 
the idea that Christ is the Light of the world, but the prog- 
ress of Christianity and its great effects in every depart- 
ment of life are sufficient evidence that Christ is the Light 
of men, and that Christianity is the best and absolute relig- 
ion. 

We could cite many testimonies as to the esteem of Christ, 
even among unbelievers, but such testimonies are well 
known. The above-named false religions recognize also 
Christ to a certain extent. He cannot be ignored. The fact 
that Christianity has not yet conquered the world does not 
disprove the claims of Christianity as the supreme religion, 
because we must consider the power of evil, and that Christ- 
ianity respects freedom, not being a religion of determinism. 
Neither should we become pessimistic, because Christian 
missions do not cover the world. We must admit the great 
progress of Missions. If the so-called Christian nations do 
not always follow the laws of Christ, this does not prove the 



132 

failure of Christianity, but only the neglect of Christian 
principles by individuals as no one can be compelled to be a 
true Christian. Wherever the religion of Christ is accepted 
in truth, its fruits follow in morality, philanthropy, joy, 
peace and good will among men. 

b. Christianity is characterized by openness and simplicity. 

All other religions depend more upon external objects, 
light but contain esoteric features accessible only to a se- 
lect class. The Christian religion is plain to everybody in 
all the things that pertain to salvation and is adapted to 
every existing state and constitution, and to the capacities 
of all men. 

c. The spirituality of the worship. 

All other religions depend more upon external objects. 
Only Christ taught men to worship in spirit and in truth. 

If some churches go to the extreme of externalism, it is 
not the fault of Christianity, but their misconception. But 
we must recognize that worship in spirit and truth does not 
preclude external expression. No one should think that 
liturgical service is against spiritual worship. The other 
religions make the external ritual essential, but Christianity 
does not. And still we must admit that public worship must 
have some ritual. But the ritual does not lessen the spirit- 
uality of the Christian service ; it rather makes the service 
more spiritual. 

d. Christianity is superior in the humiliation of man and 

the exaltation of God. 

False religions debase Deity and exalt man. The Egyp- 
tians made monsters of their Deities. The Romans made 
even their emperors Deities. The most famous philosophers 
were not even ashamed to rank their Deities below them- 
selves. If we compare the mythologies of the heathen relig- 
ions and the pure doctrine of God in Christianity, no more 
proof is necessary for Christianity. No ethnic religion can 



133 

show a character like Christ. Other religions would have 
God bear the image of man, whereas the Christian religion 
teaches us that man ought to bear the image of God. 

e. Christianity proves by its great effects that it is the 

only religion worthy of the name. 

It is unnecessary to enumerate all the effects of Chris- 
tianity. What would the world be without Christ and His 
work! 

The Christian religion contains all the true elements of 
all religions, and its nature is universal. A religion for all 
men must be without family customs, tribal institutions or 
a national polity. The Christian religion transcends the 
limitations of kinship, caste, language and color. Christian- 
ity suits all men in all conditions, and, therefore, it is the 
religion binding all who embrace it directly to God without 
human mediation. It combines all men in one organism 
whose head is Christ, and at the same time it is a personal 
religion. The Christians live by faith in Christ and as a 
society constitute the new humanity. 

f. Christianity in comparison with other religions wins 

more and more by its positive statements tested by 
experience. 

The positive statements do not prevent the use of reason- 
ing and imply no dictatorial methods. If the distinctive 
doctrines are mysterious and wonderful, they are not neces- 
sarily opposed to reasonableness. But in discussing the 
Christian doctrines with adherents of other religions, we 
cannot convert them by arguments in dispute. Missionaries 
have often failed in discussions with Buddhists and the wise 
men of the East, when they would have gained by positively 
stating facts based on tests in experience. Both heathen 
and nominal Christians may be led on the way to conversion 
by direct appeals to conscience, and they cannot be converted 
except by the word of God and the Holy Spirit. When their 
reason is regenerated it finds nothing uncongenial in the 



134 

Christian system. It is the unregenerate reason which is 
unable to discern the things of the Spirit. Christianity con- 
quers both in the heathen and nominally Christian world by 
preaching the Gospel. When ministers state the facts ac- 
cording to the word of God and Christian experience, the 
effect is mighty and the result surpassing all other efforts. 
In a religious discussion on the foreign field it is not neces- 
sary to show the inferiority of the heathen belief, but simply 
to present the Christian doctrine. We could, of course, con- 
trast Buddha and Jesus Christ, but gain more by picturing 
Christ only, and the Buddhist will soon see the difference. 
In the same way present the Christian doctrine of redemp- 
tion, and the inferiority of the Buddhist view will be appar- 
ent. Without discussing the hope of the heathen, picture 
the heaven of Christianity, and the heathen will see the con- 
trast. Augustine said : "In Cicero and Plato and other such 
writers I meet with many things acutely said, and things 
that excite a certain warmth of emotion, but in none of them 
do I find these words: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and 
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest!" We must know 
Christianity from the inside. A heathen or a nominal 
Christian must learn by actual experience. For instance, if 
a Buddhist is converted to the Christian faith, he is able to 
understand the superiority of Christianity. 

There is no religion which states its doctrines so positive- 
ly as Christianity and is able to stand the test. No modern 
attempts to provide a substitute for the Christian religion 
have been successful. It is not likely that any new religion 
will replace Christianity, and we know from the Bible that 
Christianity will conquer. The Christian Church is yet in 
some powerful heathen countries like the leaven in the meal, 
but it will leaven the whole. In our Christian experience 
we feel positively Christianity triumphant. 

Paul exclaims triumphantly: "All things are yours; 
whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, 
or death, or things present, or things to come ; all are yours ; 
and ye are Christ's ; and Christ is God's." Christianity will 
conquer and triumph. 



135 

4. To Realize the New Humanity, Christ Continues 

His Work as High Priest and King Until the 

Kingdom of God Is Completed. 

If Christ is the God-man, as has been proved, and if the 
Bible is the Word of God, then the statements in the Bible 
in regard to Christ's intercessory work and rule in the uni- 
verse must also be true. The history of the Christian 
Church and the experiences of every Christian prove that 
the Saviour is living* and active. And the sayings of Christ 
have been fulfilled in so many instances that denial thereof 
is impossible. Therefore, the prophecies of Christ in regard 
to the future must also be realized. The Christian's hope 
of the completed redemption is, therefore, reasonable. The 
reality of the Christian experience becomes consequently 
also a testimony of the truth of the Christian facts. 



136 



IV. Pneumatological Apologetics. 



This division of Apologetics treats of the evidence of the 
Christian experience. If the Christian experience is a re- 
ality, then this experience will furnish valid testimony to 
the facts of the Christian religion as to its truth and super- 
natural character. 

§18. THE NATURAL EXPERIENCE. 
1. The General Experience in Relation to the World. 

If there was no mind, there would be no experience. Sup- 
pose the material universe existed, without mind it would 
be as non-existing. But the law of cause and effect proves 
that there must have been a mind to create it. According 
to the idealistic philosophy of Berkeley, to which we have 
referred in another part, the material universe only exists 
as a phenomenon and as such it is real to mind by the will 
of the Supreme Mind. According to this philosophy the 
only real existence is mind. Our experience of the world 
would then be only a dream which is real to us. This dream 
would differ from ordinary dreams by its exact order and 
constant repetition in the experience of mankind. But our 
active life and history prove, at least to our feeling, that life 
is more real than a dream. And our reason is not satisfied 
with such a philosophy. The world is too tangible and life 
too concrete for our minds, which makes it impossible to 
entertain seriously the thought of the world as only a dream- 
like phenomenon. But it is true that without a mind with 
its qualities the world would be non-existing to our experi- 
ence. In this respect Fichte's idealism is correct. The ob- 



137 

ject may exist in itself, but not for the subject, if the subject 
is unable to objectivize. Having this ability the subject at 
least is conscious of the reality of the object in the mind. 
And the object may not be known as to the thing in itself, 
but as Kant teaches, only as the thing for us. As minds we 
depend on our senses in relation to the material world. We 
use our optical nerves, our acoustic means and our nerves 
in touch. Eyesight varies a good deal, but even when it is 
at its best, we only see the picture of a thing in our optical 
camera. But by the assistance of touch our apprehension 
of objects possible to be touched becomes more clear and 
certain. And yet there are many objects we cannot touch, 
but only see and perhaps also feel in their effects. We see 
the sun and feel its heat. And in all these perceptions we 
depend also upon natural laws as media of transference. 
But although we recognize the limitations, the rapport be- 
tween object and subject convinces us of a reality outside 
of us. We first enter into the world of experience and think 
it over, by which afterthought it becomes a notion. And 
by detaching ourselves from the object in reflecting on it, 
we understand better its reality, and we become sensible of 
the harmony of our thought-image and the nature of the 
object. By reflecting we become more certain. But we 
could not attain to any degree of certainty, if there was no 
real object. It is not necessary to comprehend fully all rela- 
tions, media and the formation of these media, but we know 
that we have access to them, and by using them we realize 
that there is a real universe around us and also that we 
belong to it. It is not necessary to understand the inter- 
relations and philosophical questions of dualism and monism 
in order to have a natural certainty of a world outside of us. 
Every being, whether he be educated or uneducated, reflects 
upon nature outside of him and inside of him. Paul even 
holds that the natural perception leads to a personification 
of a higher being, or God, and that God manifests Himself 
in nature. And it is evident that all natural experience of 
the universe is combined with a notion of a higher being 



138 

than man. Although Paul is the exponent of the strictly 
Christian experience, his words have great weight, inde- 
pendent of inspiration, because of his pre-Christian ex- 
periences. We quote the passage in Rom. 1 : 19, 20 : "Be- 
cause that which may be known of God is manifest in them ; 
for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things 
of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being 
perceived through the things that are made, even his ever- 
lasting power and divinity; that they may be without ex- 
cuse." Whatever may be the modes of manifestation, the 
manifestation cannot be denied. In such a way there is not 
only perceived a world as object, but a higher mind than 
ours manifesting itself in the universe. When we experi- 
ence the presence of other minds in actual contact, we know 
them in the forms of bodies which we see, hear and touch. 
But although we know other minds in bodies, we also are 
aware of the fact that there is a personality and that the 
body does not fully express this personality and yet reveals 
much. God has not a body in a sense that we have, and 
really has no form, but the universe may be looked upon as 
His body as far as nature can reveal Him. The natural ex- 
perience, therefore, is not limited to external objects. We 
do not see the actual person of a man, when we see his body, 
and, in fact, we only see a picture of his body. But the body, 
anyway, makes the person real. Nature, therefore, has also 
a power to make God real to us as God works in the uni- 
verse as we work in our bodies, but this, of course, is not 
an explanation of the relation of God and the universe. It 
proves, however, that the natural experience of the world 
cannot be separated from a spiritual experience of the mind. 

2. The Natural Experience in Relation to Mind, or 

Ego. 

Whatever evolution may be able to prove as to the material 
part of man, although as yet no real proofs for the so- 
called evolution of man from the animal has been forth- 
coming, it is evident that the evolution theory cannot ex- 



139 

plain the higher nature of man. Man is a personality, a 
mind, and therefore a self-conscious and self-determining 
being. It is natural for a person to speak of himself as I, 
or an Ego. Mind reveals itself in its thinking, feeling and 
willing. Descartes' dictum "Cogito, ergo sum" cannot be 
denied. The natural man in his experience is certain as to 
a thing, if he can be as sure of it as his own existence. He 
never doubts his own existence. And this knowledge of 
himself is more immediate than the knowledge of the world. 
If the material world vanished, the I would remain. We 
have a certainty that mind must exist, and we cannot dis- 
lodge the notion that we are minds as we daily think, feel 
and will. The natural experience does not trouble itself 
with different philosophical views as to explanations, but 
there is a natural assurance of existence. This self-evident 
experience af actual existence is always accompanied with 
a feeling of responsibility. Without explaining in this con- 
nection what conscience means, it is clear that there is an 
experience corresponding to the accepted meaning of the 
term. However conscience may be modified, it is there and 
no man can free himself from this moral factor experienced 
both as objective and subjective, and, therefore, the expres- 
sion conscientia is correct. Man becomes sensible of it 
either with or without the co-operation of his will. It is 
thrust upon him in his inner world as the phycical world 
enters through the senses, but he feels that whatever he 
may think of the physical world, he cannot disengage him- 
self from a moral world. A man may doubt many things 
as to what he sees, hears and feels, but he is always more 
or less conscious of a moral world. This is an abiding truth 
in the philosophy of Kant, and Fichte refers to the same 
in his doctrine of the moral order of the world. The con- 
sciousness of the experience may have many gradations 
under different forms of religious belief, but the moral factor 
is never excluded. Paul, in Rom. 2 : 15, refers to the heathen 
as possessing conscience in the words : "In that they show 
the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience 



140 

bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with an- 
other accusing or else excusing them." Man's natural rela- 
tion in his experience within himself is consequently moral 
and also religious. We find, therefore, that all nations are 
more or less religious. This moral and religious feeling has 
taken many forms, but this does not invalidate the fact. 
It does not belong to Apologetics to discuss the history of 
religion or the philosophy of religion, but Apologetics claims 
that in the experience of religion, the Christian religion is 
the best, highest and final. But the Christian experience 
is somewhat connected with the natural experience, although 
a higher experience on account of its dependence upon a 
special revelation of God. Man without the special revelation 
may have a moral and religious experience through natural 
revelation of God in nature and conscience. And although 
the Christian experience is of a higher nature, it transpires 
in the same thinking subject and formally must depend upon 
the Ego as a thinking, feeling and willing mind. If man 
was not a mind, or person, there could neither be natural 
nor religious experience. The natural experience depends 
also upon an objective world in nature, just as the Chris- 
tian experience is related to the objective of a spiritual 
world and its realities. 

§19. THE CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE. 

1. The Christian Experience in Relation to Spiritual 

Realities. 

There could not be a subjective experience of spiritual 
things, if such did not exist objectively. It is, therefore, a 
presupposition to the experience that there is a spiritual 
world. As we find minds in the physical world and know 
ourselves as minds, there must be minds in the spiritual 
world. Otherwise we could not be acted upon. Even in our 
natural experience we recognize a supreme mind. This 
mind could not be supreme, if there was a lack of ability to 
communicate. And we could not be minds, if we could not 



141 

receive communications. Now truthful men of old have 
claimed a special revelation from God, the supreme mind, 
and this revelation has been recorded in books which we 
have collected in the Bible. We have already presented the 
proofs for the inspiration of the Bible. The word of God is 
recorded in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God. It 
proves the wisdom of the supreme mind, or God, that He so 
to say wrote a book by the instrumentality of holy men 
whom He inspired. There was a high spiritual experience 
in the Old Testament times and a Christian experience be- 
fore the books of the New Testament were written. But the 
spiritual and Christian experience was more fully compre- 
hended, when the New Testament was completed. Some 
object to the Christian experience as founded in the Bible, 
and hold that without the Bible the experience would be dif- 
ferent. But no true Christian transfers to himself in imag- 
ination the experience expressed in the Bible. It is true that 
the Bible has an essential relation to a normal and developed 
Christian experience. And the Bible is the constant inter- 
preter of the experience. If we in ordinary scientific re- 
search experience true facts and then find a textbook sub- 
stantiating and explaining such facts, the truth is not les- 
sened, but confirmed. The same is the case, if we read about 
the experience first and then realize the experience. We 
may be like the Samaritans who believed on account of the 
words of the Samaritan woman who had told them of Christ, 
but later testified: "Now we believe, not because of thy 
speaking; for we have heard for ourselves, and know that 
this is indeed the Saviour of the world." When we have ex- 
perienced what Christ is to us, then we believe the Bible, not 
only on grounds of evidence, but also on account of our per- 
sonal experience. As a consequence we also believe in the 
facts of the Bible doctrines. These are both objective and 
subjective factors in the experience of salvation. Philippi 
holds : "It will always come to this, that not the subjective 
regeneration, but the objective atonement wrought out by 
Christ, attested and offered by the word of God, is alike the 



142 

starting point and the only rock on which the evangelical 
Christian bases his assurance of salvation, and by which he 
ever raises himself again." Frank answers : "But then the 
question is just this, how an evangelical Christian comes to 
make those graciously given realities the only rock of his 
confidence." It is self-evident that the realities must be 
presupposed, and that justification and regeneration must 
follow. Otherwise there is only knowledge and no experi- 
ence. The spiritual realities make their impression upon 
the individual, and if the necessary conditions exist, the sub- 
jective experience follows. 

2. Such an Experience is a Fact. 

Millions of people have during the centuries of the Chris- 
tian era testified to such an experience. It is reasonable to 
infer that the testimonies of such great numbers during 
different periods and in different lands and countries cannot 
be falsehood. Among the witnesses are thousands who be- 
long to the learned professions, men who are careful inves- 
tigators, persons who would not be deceived and millions 
who, if not scholars, yet possess common sense. The most 
common things may just as well be denied as the fact of 
Christian experience. 

If there be a God and a spiritual world, it is perfectly 
reasonable that such an experience is possible. The Father 
of spirits can surely influence the spirits He has called into 
being. And as there are natural laws in the material uni- 
verse, there must be spiritual laws in the spiritual universe. 
There are certain laws in the working of nature and fixed 
means in applying these laws. And, therefore, there must 
exist spiritual means by which we come in contact with 
God, and revelation points out these spiritual means. If 
these spiritual laws are obeyed, the Christian experience 
begins, and we become conscious thereof just as sure as we 
are conscious of the life in the world of sense. 



143 



3. The Beginning and Development of the Experience. 

From the preceding it is plain that there could be no 
Christian experience without the Bible and its objective 
facts. We also know that there is a Christian Church where 
the word of God is preached and the holy sacraments ad- 
ministered. Paul states in Rom. 10: 14, 15: "How shall 
they believe in him whom they have not heard ? and how shall 
they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, 
except they be sent ?" and in the 17 verse : "So belief cometh 
from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.' , When 
we, who are in Christian lands, become aware of our envir- 
onment, we find ourselves under the influence of the spirit- 
ual realities as mediated through the agency of the Church. 
Most of us were also baptized in childhood and, therefore, 
under the influence of the Holy Spirit, given to the Church 
on the first Christian Pentecost. And whenever the Church 
extends her missionary activities the injunction of Christ is 
followed: "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all na- 
tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the 
Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I commanded you." 

The Christian experience has two viewpoints, either as be- 
ginning by baptism from childhood, or as beginning in adult 
baptism, when the necessary conditions are present. And 
within the Christian church there is also the viewpoint from 
the rebeginning of the experience, when persons, having 
broken the baptismal covenant, are converted and return to 
the Father's home. We will briefly delineate the experience 
as to those who remain in baptismal grace and somewhat 
more fully explain the experience in relation to those who 
are converted and regenerated. 

Among the Christian denominations there are different 
views in regard to the contents of baptism. But all agree 
that baptism stands for discipleship in some meaning or 
another. The sacrament of baptism is the sacrament of 
initiation and regeneration. Regeneration is effected when 



144 

the necessary condition is presnt. Many members of the 
different churches incline more or less to the viewpoint of 
the Lutheran Church that children by baptism are regener- 
ated, and that adults, who have not been baptized, must be 
baptized as a condition of discipleship. Adults are regener- 
ated by baptism, if faith is present. In children there is 
passivity, and the Holy Spirit works faith at baptism. It is 
not in the beginning a self-conscious faith, but yet a saving 
faith. But in apologetics we cannot more fully discusss dif- 
ferent views of churches, or expound dogmatic views. But 
we must hold that the Christian experience has a basis in 
baptism. In adults there is a Christian experience before 
baptism, but all truly Christian churches recognize baptism 
as necessary for complete discipleship. 

As the majority of church members were baptized in 
childhood, it becomes an interesting question, why so many 
fall and must be converted. There are, of course, no statis- 
tics, but it seems to be the prevailing belief that most child- 
ren break their baptismal covenant and, therefore, must be 
converted. This is probably the case, more or less, but the 
normal condition should be the reverse. And we should 
work for the normal condition in the Christian education of 
the young. But it cannot be denied that there are many 
persons who have remained true children of God since their 
baptism in childhood. For that reason we briefly delineate 
the Christian experience in such cases. 

When a Christian child becomes self-conscious and self- 
determining and by Christian education is led to understand 
the meaning of baptism, such a child will experience the life 
of sanctification. The child, of course, will commit sins of 
ignorance, of weakness and of the impulse of violent pas- 
sion. 

But a Christian child is taught to daily confess such sins 
and ask God to forgive. And although such a child does not 
experience in daily repentance what a converted sinner ex- 
perienced in his conversion, there is a realization of the dif- 
ferent steps in conversion, an assimilation of the leading 



145 

facts of coming to God and an application of the import of 
the justifying and regenerating grace. The feeling of sin 
may not be as intense as in the case of a fallen sinner in 
repentance, but still deep enough to appreciate the meaning 
of God's grace toward sinners. And sometimes a lapse may 
occur by an intentional sin, but an actual fall will not ensue, 
if the child immediately is taught to confess and mend his 
ways. Then the feeling of sin will be deeper and the experi- 
ence of repentance more vivid. The experience of a Chris- 
tian child may have interruptions as to clearness in under- 
standing and as to certainty, because a child is a child and 
must be developed by constant nurture. We must also re- 
member the counteracting influences of the spirit of play, 
associations with other minds and the many temptations of 
early life. 

But by using the means of grace and by prayer the spir- 
itual life of the child may survive and continue to grow in 
sanctification. The experience of the young, who remain 
Christians, is as a consequence of the same kind as the ex- 
perience of a converted sinner in sanctification. The ex- 
perience of the turning point in justification by faith and 
regeneration may not be so marked, but there is always a 
time, when the young Christian realizes the same experience. 

But sad to reflect upon, there are many who fall and be- 
come prodigals. If these are to be saved, they must return 
to baptismal grace or become converted. We must, there- 
fore, also describe the genesis and growth of such an experi- 
ence. The external modes of conversion may be varied, but 
the way of salvation is only one. 

The difference of experience is somewhat varied in the 
case of baptized persons and in relation to the heathen and 
proselytes in Christian countries. It is self-evident that 
baptized persons are in a different environment from the 
heathen, whether in the lands of the heathen or in Christian 
countries. The baptized are in the atmosphere of the Spirit, 
but the experience of conversion is mainly the same in every 
case. 



146 

The first step in the experience is the hearing of the call of 
God through the agency of the Gospel which may lead to 
awakening. Man does not approach God first, but the Spirit 
of God is the prime mover. The natural man has no spirit- 
ual power to convert himself, but on the contrary he resists 
and would continue to resist the work of God, if the Holy 
Spirit did not work upon him. Man has power to read or 
hear or in some manner to be influenced. If he can read 
books, he also is able to read the Bible. If he can hear lect- 
ures, he is also able to hear sermons. Every well man, who 
can walk, is able to direct his steps to the church, where the 
word of God is preached. And the Holy Spirit prompts him 
to read and hear the word of God. He has a natural under- 
standing, feeling and will, because he is a person. The 
natural man is also invited to hear the Gospel by Christians. 
He cannot, therefore, excuse himself in this respect, but is 
so far responsible. But in all these proffered opportunities, 
it is God who approaches him. In Dogmatics, therefore, this 
first offer is called prevenient grace as the Holy Spirit is 
prevenient or preceding, coming before man's coming. This 
coming of the Spirit is inevitable, but not irresistible, be- 
cause experience shows how man resists the repeated calls. 
No Gospel-reader or hearer can claim that he has not been 
called. At this Gospel call there is a crisis, and man stands 
face to face with God. It is a very critical moment as man 
may reject the proffered grace, or he may become passive 
and be an object of the operations of the Spirit towards con- 
version. It has always been a psychological problem, why 
and how some become passive, while others resist the Spirit. 
But if man had no power to resist, he would be under the in- 
fluence of determinism. In the resistance or non-resistance 
lies also man's responsibility. If God could force men to 
accept the grace, then man would not be a man or person 
having thought, feeling and will. Although these powers of 
the person are corrupted by inherited and actual sins, man 
has not lost the ability of thinking, feeling and willing. If 
man could be compelled to be converted, he would be an 



147 

automaton, a higher happy animal, but not a man who could 
experience what salvation means. Then man would lack a 
self-conscious and self-determined mind. The Spirit of God 
is impelling, but not compelling. When man is awakened 
by the call of the Spirit, the same Spirit illumines by the 
word man's understanding in order that man may not resist, 
but be still and passive. This illumination is also mediated 
by hearing the Gospel preached. It is a test which is neces- 
sary, whether man will conclude to become passive and thus 
allow the Spirit to work. The word of God speaks also to 
the sensibility of man in order to reach the will and make 
man realize the necessity of a receptive mood. The will of 
man is not an active factor in conversion. The factors of 
conversion are only the word of God and the Spirit. The 
will of man only allows the Spirit to begin and complete the 
conversion. It is the same activity of will as when a poor 
man is ready to receive alms, or a sick man allows the physi- 
cian to treat him. Man has no natural power to save or cure 
himself. Man must use the means of grace. But the real 
active work of conversion is by the power of the Spirit in 
the word of God. Without the approach of the Spirit, man 
would not come in a position to choose the passive state. But 
being placed in this position, man is responsible in his resist- 
ance or non-resistance. If he is convinced to let the Spirit 
work, the Spirit illumines the sinner by the law in order that 
he may feel and experience conviction of sin and guilt. This 
is an arraignment by the law. The awakened sinner realizes 
first his so-called bosom sins, but later he feels more and 
more convicted as to all his sins, and he begins to experience 
contrition. It often happens in this crisis that the convicted 
sinner imagines that he has some power to set things right, 
but he soon realizes his inability. He begins to understand 
that he cannot fulfill the law. He confesses his sins, feels 
humiliated, hates and abhors sin. The depth of feeling may 
vary in intensity, but every sinner must feel conviction. The 
sinner feels like the publican and cries : "God, be merciful 
to me a sinner." The repentant sinner is not ignorant as to 



148 

the Gospel which he has read and heard, but at this stage 
he is often confused as to the real meaning of atonement. 
But when the repenting sinner reads and hears the word of 
God, the Spirit enlightens him and the great facts of salva- 
tion become clearer and clearer. And yet the old mind of 
resistance may reappear on account of the condition of faith. 
But the drawing of the Spirit continues. The soul longs to 
believe, but struggles in his wrong conception of faith. The 
Spirit guides him to comprehend more fully, and finally there 
is a state of receptivity and childish trust. The merits of 
Christ are apprehended by confiding faith. The promises 
of the Gospel now stand forth as a distinct answer to the 
soul. The repenting sinner feels his utter unworthiness, but 
trusts in his Saviour, Jesus Christ. Then the experience of 
justification and regeneration occurs. He begins to under- 
stand personally that justification is an act of God by which 
the believer receives the forgiveness of his sins and the 
imputation of the acquired righteousness of Christ. The ob- 
jective reconciliation by Christ in satisfaction and expiation 
now stands forth as the only foundation, and the more the 
believer is instructed correctly, the better he understands in 
experience the import of the passive and active obedience of 
Christ. But whatever may be lacking in doctrinal clearness, 
the believer clings to the Saviour. There is a trust that the 
sins are forgiven and that the righteousness of Christ cov- 
ers all guilt. 

The believer experiences a new life and is taught by the 
word of God that regeneration has taken place. A justified 
sinner is also regenerated. At the same moment as God 
justifies by forgiving the sins and imputing the acquired 
righteousness of Christ, the Holy Spirit regenerates. 

The justification by God in heaven results in the regenera- 
tion of the heart. Whether we define regeneration strictly 
or in the old dogmatic strictest sense, it is certain that a jus- 
tified sinner is regenerated, and a regenerated justified, but 
he is not regenerated on account of his faith, but by faith, 
the faith in Christ, by which he was justified. The conver- 



149 

sion is thereby completed. The sinner is home again with 
God, or if we look at it from the viewpoint of regeneration, 
he is again in the state of baptismal grace. And he experi- 
ences what it means to be reborn in the land of the living. 
He sees, hears, speaks and feels differently. There may be 
a lack of ability in explaining, but he can confess as the blind 
man cured of his blindness : "This one thing I know, that, 
whereas I was blind, now I see." 

There has been a radical transformation of the intellect, 
feeling and will. The scales having fallen from the spirit- 
ual eyes, a new environment of knowledge and truth has 
been opened. The feelings enter a new field of peace and 
joy. The will of the new man is now the will of God, and it 
is no longer a burden to offer the third petition. The old I 
may attempt to make itself felt, but the new I is dominat- 
ing. The justified or regenerated has also entered into the 
state of the mystical union. At the moment of justification 
and regeneration, there occurs a unitio which as a perma- 
nent state is called the unio mystica. It is a personal contact 
with God who is in a peculiar way indwelling. By reading 
the word of God concerning this union, it becomes more 
clear, just as a textbook assists a scholar. The work of the 
indwelling Holy Spirit is recognized. And by the testimony 
of the Spirit, Christ is more fully known as the object of 
faith. The person of Christ becomes to the believer a living 
presence. It is a real presence, in which the believer is 
bound to God and Christ by the closest of all ties and is made 
a member of Christ's body. And the Spirit also testifies to 
God as Father. By the Spirit we are brought to Christ and 
through Christ we are brought to the Father. The result is 
the fulfillment of the promise of Christ : "If a man love me, 
he will keep my word : and my Father will love him, and we 
will come unto him, and make our abode with him." John 
14: 23. We know, therefore, the Father through Christ. 
And here it may be well to recollect what Philip asked: 
"Lord, show us the Father; and it sufficeth us." We read 
further in John 14 : 9 : "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been 



so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip ? 
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how gayest thou 
then, Show us the Father?" 

He does not mean that they are the same forms or persons 
of God, because in the next verse Christ speaks of a distinc- 
tion as to hypostasis in the words : '''I am in the Father, and 
the Father in me." But having the same essence, it is the 
same essential character we see in both, although the char- 
acter hypostaticus differs. Even the real person of a man is 
not the body, but the essential character of the man. If 
Philip desired to see the Father in some kind of manifesta- 
tion, the real viewpoint would anyway be the character. 
All what was essential appeared in Christ. 

Before we proceed we would notice the difference of ex- 
perience in relation to the knowledge of God as we find it 
in natural man, nominally a Christian, and the experience 
in a real Christian. The natural man with Christian knowl- 
edge knows God especially as the providential Father, in 
the second place he knows Christ historically, and the Holy 
Spirit is not as really a person to him as the Father and Son. 
But the converted, justified and regenerated man comes first 
in real contact with the Spirit, and then he becomes aware 
of Christ as actual and living, and through Him God as 
Father becomes a real Father. 

We have now delineated the main points in the genesis 
and development of the Christian experience. And as all 
Christians have in some degree such an experience, it be- 
comes an evidence as to reality. We only wish to add a few 
remarks in regard to certainty. Where there is faith, cer- 
tainty will follow. Some look for certainty before faith and 
thereby hinder faith. But all will have certainty sooner or 
later. At the new birth some Christians are like children 
before the self-conscious life. There may be lack of instruc- 
tion as to the real meaning of Christian certainty. If we 
use the objective means and have subjective experience, the 
certainty will come. There cannot be any subjective ex- 
perience without the objective facts, but the objective facts 



151 

would not avail us if we have not subjective experience. 
We would never know this world if we were not born into 
it and lived in it. And likewise we would never know the 
spiritual world if we were not born into it and lived in it. 
By regeneration we attain the spiritual life and live in the 
kingdom of God. But we could not be born into it if it 
did not exist, and if there were no means by which the new 
birth could take place. The objective and subjective go 
together. When we are regenerated, the Christian facts of 
salvation become living realities. They are no longer a 
story, or narrative, but facts entering into our daily life. 
We find, therefore, that the certainty must depend upon both 
factors. The testimony of the Spirit is twofold, internally 
by the work in the heart, experienced by the spirit of man, 
and externally in the word of God, which is the basis and 
means of confirming. It is a cowitnessing according to Rom. 
8: 16. The Holy Spirit, working upon our spirit by the 
word of God, cowitnesses by all His operations, when we 
use the word of God and find the true marks of the new life. 
Then we attain to certainty in our spirit. In I John 3 : 24 
we read: "And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by 
the Spirit which he gave us." This certainty is strength- 
ened by the continual operations in renovation or sanctifi- 
cation. 

4. The Continuation and Growth of the Experience. 

When man becomes convinced of the new life, he finds 
that the Christian experience is intensified and continues 
daily in renovation. It is a clear proof to him that the ex- 
perience is real and not imaginary, and others observe the 
change having taken place, which proves that there is no 
self-deception. 

The regenerated soul feels what real blessedness is, and 
now it is a pleasure to obey the will of God. There is a bond 
of love, whilst formerly he feared God. And the love ex- 
tends to all the children of God, and the interest in humani- 
ty becomes stronger. The Bible becomes the most interest- 



152 

ing book, the daily spiritual food, and the preaching of the 
Gospel is more attractive than anything else. The Lord's 
Supper becomes a real feast, a true communion of the body 
and blood of the Saviour, a confirmation of justification and 
nourishment for the new life. The doctrinal conception 
may be more or less clear, depending upon the Confessions 
in the Church where he is a member, but to all Christians 
regeneration brings a higher meaning as to what is received 
in the Sacrament. The mystical union also becomes a more 
living reality. 

The work of the Spirit becomes an experienced fact in the 
daily concursus of sanctification, because the regenerated 
co-operate with the new powers given by the Spirit. And 
the Christian begins to understand the full significance of 
Rom. 8: 26: "And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth 
our infirmity; for we know not how to pray as we ought: 
but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with 
groanings which cannot be uttered." And the words in 
Gal. 4 : 6 also stand forth in a new light : "And because ye 
are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our 
hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Prayer is now a prayer in 
the name of Jesus Christ. The whole relation to prayer is 
changed. A true Christian does not discuss what prayer is, 
because he knows it. He is not perplexed as to his own ex- 
perience, whether prayer is only a reflex action in the sub- 
jective or objective sense, because answers to prayer belong 
to the facts of his experience, and constant prayer becomes 
natural to the spiritual life, just as breathing to the bodily 
life. As natural health depends to a great extent upon deep 
breathing, the spiritual life is strengthened by deep devotion 
in prayer. 

The knowledge of Christ and the love of Him increase 
during the Spirit's work of renovation. He becomes more 
and more personal, and His presence is felt. The Christian 
understands more fully the work of the Saviour, and his 
only basis for salvation rests now upon the merits of Christ. 
Christ is now no longer an ideal and historical, but a very 



153 

present Saviour with whom the Christian lives in the 
closest communication. The love is a personal love, and 
the Christian longs for the day when Christ shall be mani- 
fested in glory at the second Advent. 

And the Father, who became a real Father in justification 
and regeneration, stands nearer than ever. To be at home 
with the Father, although in the Father's house on earth, 
implies daily experiences of the Father's love. Christ says : 
"For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved 
me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father." 
John 16: 27. 

The interrelations stand out very plain, and we receive 
at least a glimpse into the spiritual relationship of the mys- 
tical union. The possibility of our sojourn with God and 
God's sojourn with us may be hard to understand, but Chris- 
tian experience proves it. We must, however, consider that 
God has an absolute omnipresence, and there are spiritual 
laws of induction by which we come in contact. All human 
beings depend upon the absolute presence of God, but the 
Christian experiences the contact and indwelling by fol- 
lowing the laws of the spiritual world as described in the 
Bible. There are natural forces whose operation depends 
upon certain laws. We do not understand these laws, but 
by experience we learn their use. 

The Christian increases in knowledge as to the laws of the 
mystical union. But although he lives in this higher sphere, 
he soon finds that there is also a gravitation to earth and to 
the life of the world. The old I is not dead, and there are 
temptations entering into the circle of his new being. He 
soon must confess: "I find then the law, that, to me who 
would do good, evil is present. For I delight in the law of 
God after the inward man : but I see a different law in my 
members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing 
me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my mem- 
bers." Rom. 7 : 21 — 23. The Christian, therefore, must live 
the life of daily repentance, and he learns that renovation 
also is combined with crucifixion of the old I. This implies 



154 

suffering, self-denial and constant warfare against the flesh, 
the world and the devil. But in this warfare, there may be 
revealed a drowsiness of spirit, indifference in the use of the 
means of grace and in the use of the means of virtue such as 
prayer. The former joyful feelings are in the background, 
and there must be a schooling in believing without sight and 
feeling. Troubles arise, when there are no visible fruits of 
faith, although God may see them and other Christians may 
observe them. But in all these difficulties, a Christian can- 
not give up his trust in Christ. In all turnings on the way, 
in tribulations and in all the dangers, he keeps his aim in 
view, to walk on the road to the heavenly City. 

And as he loves God more and more, his interest in the 
kingdom of God increases. Drawn by the love of Christ, this 
love also impels him to do good works, not by compulsion of 
an outside law, or as a slave, but by the love of Christ, guided 
by the law as also written in the heart, and, therefore, as 
free, he finds his delight in doing God's will. It gives him 
great pain to realize his many failures and omissions. More 
and more he observes his sins, but he holds fast to God's 
promises. Even if he himself does not see any marked prog- 
ress in sanctification, it is evident that there is growth into 
Christian manhood. There may be doubts and vexations, 
but by the power of the Spirit he overcomes. The new life 
in the spiritual realm becomes his real world, and the argu- 
ments of the opposers have no effect, because he is con- 
vinced of the existence of the spiritual life from daily exper- 
ience. There is a confirmed certainty also, because others 
have the same experience, and he, therefore, moves in a 
world of associates with the same faith, love and hope. 

We could continue to describe different phases of the 
Christian experience and its evidence, but what has been 
said in very plain language is sufficient to prove the facts 
of the experience. Although the experience as evidence may 
be scientifically verified, it is not necessary to delineate it in 
scientific phrases. The Christian experience is complex, but 
simple. The only way to become certain of its verity and 
reality, however, is by actual test. 



155 



§20. THE SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION OF THE EVI- 
DENCE OF THE EXPERIENCE. 

1. The Possibility of Such A Verification. 

Many claim that such verification is impossible, but it de- 
pends upon false views in philosophy and heterodox views 
in theology, and the cause may also be a wrong conception 
of science, defining science in a very narrow sense as only 
including the so-called natural sciences. By such a limita- 
tion Theology would not be a science. But the individual 
opinions of scientists do not settle the questions. It cannot 
be denied that there are physical sciences which impart only 
relative knowledge. The knowledge attained in Geology and 
Astronomy has changed several times as to the very founda- 
tions of these sciences. But Theology is an absolute science 
in its basis and main facts. The relative knowledge of mat- 
ter, space and time may suffice in our present spheres, but 
it is of the greatest consequence that we have right views of 
God and of moral requirements. There may be different 
views of matter, but there cannot be such varying views as 
to the essentials of righteousness. According to Newton, 
Leibnitz and other lights in the world of science absoluteness 
cannot characterize physical sciences, because the subject 
matter in the circle of these sciences is not a priori and nec- 
essary. The knowledge as to material and physical sub- 
stances is marked by contingency. But when there is a 
priori necesssity cognition becomes absolute. Such a science 
is Geometry which does not deal with matter and its pheno- 
mena, but with ideal points and lines. There are geometri- 
cal axioms derived from the mind, while the laws of matter 
are derived from matter and impressed upon the mind. Eth- 
ics and Mathematics deal with ideas and not with substances 
as Physics deals with physical substances. There cannot be 
different views of a circle or the essential of right and wrong, 
but there are many varying views concerning matter, proto- 
plasm and other things. If we believe in God and supernat- 



156 

ural revelation and that man was created in the image of 
God, it is easy to see that Theology is an absolute science. 
And men who claim unbelief as to supernatural facts, con- 
tradict one another constantly as to the real truth in physi- 
cal science. But how varied certain theological opinions 
may be, there is a common absolute ground which cannot be 
shaken. The physical sciences are based upon the senses 
and deductions from these, but Theology is based on revealed 
facts. We know that Kant held that all cognition within 
the province of the natural and sensuous is unaxiomatic and 
conditional, but within the domain of the moral and spiri- 
tual there is an absolutely certain intuition. But it is 
claimed that such an experience is unintelligible. 

This objection does not prove anything, because all ex- 
perience and science is unintelligible to the uninitiated. If 
the worldly man will become a Christian, his reason will be 
enlightened so that he may understand the facts of Chris- 
tianity in a satisfactory way or sufficiently to guide him 
right. 

Kant, of course, did not believe in a strictly Christian ex- 
perience and objected to the intrusion of metaphysics in the 
realm of religion, and, therefore, Kant said that the theoreti- 
cal reason cannot attain to knowledge respecting the thing 
itself. We know how he recognizes religion according to the 
practical reason. The communion with God has no place in 
Kant's theology. Religion is morality. Ritschlianism is a 
kind of revival of Kantism, colored by Schleiermacher and 
Lotze. Ritschl also denies that metaphysics can be a source 
of religious knowledge. But all knowledge is one. God does 
not deprive us of our reason when He brings us into a higher 
relation to Himself. The postulates of the so-called practi- 
cal reason are not knowledge. We do not get any objective 
reality through them but only subjective ideas. But religion 
demands objective -realities. And the facts of Christianity 
cannot be proved if metaphysics is excluded. 

But the real fact is that the Christian knowledge is de- 
rived from the intellect, will, and feeling. The Christian 



157 

certainty rests upon the impressions made upon all our 
faculties. There could be no Christian experience without 
illumination of the intellect and change of the will. We 
know the spiritual facts in the same way as we apprehend 
the material facts. The feeling- is upheld but has a subor- 
dinate place. Knowledge enters into the developed faith, 
and by faith reason rises to a higher exercise. The only 
antithesis is between faith and sight, but unseen things may 
be just as real as the visible. There are many material 
things that are invisible but still exist. Their effects prove 
it. The spiritual realities effect their work in our higher 
life and act through our spirit upon our whole being. We 
become conscious of these effects just as surely as of materi- 
al effects. And they are, therefore, objects of knowledge. 

The submission of the will is, of course, necessary as the 
will is a source of knowledge. 

It is objected that this requirement in the Christian ex- 
perience may make any belief possible. But no experience 
is possible without voluntary use of the means that are 
necessary. Scientific progress is often impeded because 
men are unwilling to put the facts to the test of experiment. 
It is evident that facts may be learned through the activity 
of the will which could not be acquired by intellect alone. 
This is specially true in the moral and spiritual sphere. 

Modern psychology holds that sensibility and will are 
sources of knowledge, but intellect is the only faculty of 
knowledge, and still it is, of course, also a source of knowl- 
edge. 

It is claimed that the Christian experience is limited and 
that the tests by this exclusiveness are not scientific. But 
this is the case in all science. There are in every science 
conditions which must be conformed to if tests are to be 
made. In ordinary human knowledge there is also limita- 
tion and not all know all. The spiritual test is open to all 
who follow the laws and methods of this experiment. 

But the pantheistic school of philosophy holds that the 
Christian experience is only an imperfect representation of 



158 

the true reality which is better explained by philosophy. 

According to this view Christianity is true as far as it 
reveals facts of reason in regard to God's immanence. The 
world in its history is a continuous unfolding of the Abso- 
lute. The religious experience is the immediate impression 
of the Divine Spirit coming to consciousness in the human 
spirit. Self-consciousness and God-consciousness are iden- 
tical. This divine revelation appears in the form of mental 
representations. These have attained their highest ex- 
pression in the Christian religion. But philosophy pene- 
trates deeper to the idea itself. 

But it is evident that God thus experienced is only im- 
personal, and the redemption is reduced to deliverance from 
the finite and ignorance, and not from sin. A Christian 
knows that his experience is not only symbolical representa- 
tions, but the experience of real facts. The advocates of the 
Pantheistic idea prove that they have no Christian experi- 
ence. 

Pantheism is very mystical as a basis of religion. But, 
any way, there are many who are tained by pantheistic 
corruptions and yet hold that the mode of expressing the 
Christian experience leads to mysticism. 

But the true Christian experience repudiates the false 
mysticism. There is a true mysticism which does not assert 
an immediate intuition of God. If the Christian experience 
is a reality, as proved, it is not unreasonable to make it an 
evidence. We cannot content ourselves with proofs that 
only give a higher or lower probability. Every Christian has 
a more direct experience of God's immediate intercourse 
with the soul. The spirit gives evidence of His presence. 
The true mysticism realizes the fact of Unio Mystica. 

And the Scriptures are not undervalued by the evidence 
of the experience. The Scriptures are always the source 
and rule. Without the Bible this experience would be impos- 
sible. 

It is also objected that the evidence makes everything turn 
upon the subjective states of the Christian. But the human 



159 

mind is so constituted that the objective becomes real to uS 
by the examination of the subjective. We have no immedi- 
ate intuition of the thing in itself. What we see of objects 
around us is mediated by the effects of the things in con- 
sciousness. And likewise, we can not attain to any naked 
intuition of the divine. Our knowledge is not immediate. 
There are many steps in perception, but we do not examine 
all these steps in the act of perception. 

There are many, who also hold that the evidence of Christ- 
ian experience is not evidence of Christianity, because the 
real evidence is held to be the external proofs, such as the 
historical or rational. 

It is true that the evidences mostly presented are the ex- 
ternal, but for the believer the experience is that of the high- 
est validity. The objection implies that the Christian ex- 
perience has no scientific proof. But what is evidence ? Ac- 
cording to philosophy evidence is "the ground or reason of 
knowledge, the light by which the mind apprehends things, 
whether immediately or mediately." The Christian has all 
the external proofs, but the Christian consciousness furnish- 
es the light by which the mind apprehends Christianity. 
The sensations from material objects are not the only con- 
tents of consciousness. The spiritual realities vindicate their 
existence in the same manner as the material, for instance, 
if the existence of a certain place is to be proved, historical 
and geographical evidence is strong, but the most convincing 
is my own experience that I have been in such a place. If 
then some people would doubt it, the existence of such a 
place does not depend upon their opinion. The external 
proofs of Christianity are very strong and the experience of 
all Christians substantiate the facts, and non-Christians 
should find it reasonable to accept this testimony, just as we 
all believe many things in which we ourselves are laymen. 
But the highest evidence to each one is to see with his own 
eyes and touch with his own hands. This way is open to all 
who desire to learn if Christianity is of divine origin. 

It is also objected that adherents of other religions have 



160 • 

certainty in regard to their belief. The point is not how 
strong the convictions are, but what is the evidence for the 
truth of the convictions. And a study of comparative relig- 
ions proves plainly that the Christian evidence is stronger 
than any evidence furnished by ethnic religions. A Christ- 
ian is no blind devotee, but a believer who investigates the 
facts and compares the different systems of religion. And 
the Christian assurance is not on a level with that of the 
heathen. 

2. The Method of the Verification. 

The verification of the evidence may be done in a scien- 
tific manner, if science is correctly defined, because it is not 
necessary to confine science to natural knowledge. Science 
includes any verified and systematized knowledge. In sci- 
ence we discover and verify facts and also systematize the 
results. There may be knowledge which is simply formal. 
To such science belong Logic and Mathematics. And there 
is knowledge of real existence, concerning which Philosophy 
expresses itself from different points of view. Another kind 
of knowledge is that of probability. As examples of such 
knowledge may be mentioned analogy, hypothetical knowl- 
edge or mere inference. There may be both scientific and 
practical knowldge that belongs to this kind. Knowledge 
which rests upon the testimony of others belongs to this 
class. 

The scientific method in verification implies the change of 
probable knowledge into real by experiments. The pre- 
Christian knowledge of Christianity is only probable knowl- 
edge, but this has high value. It cannot be denied that the 
concepts drawn from the experience of others are as valid as 
a large part of our knowledge. There are many things that 
make up our daily life for which we have less testimony 
than the facts of Christianity, and still we never doubt in 
regard to these things. 

It is open to every one to investigate. If we in the ordi- 
nary relations of life lack the means and ability, in the spir- 



161 

itual domain the test is possible to everybody. Poverty and 
other conditions do not hinder the experiment. 

i 

1) The change in the Experience of Regeneration is with- 
in the Sphere of Consciousness. 

Even agnostics recognize that such a sphere implies abso- 
lute certainty. Scientists admit that a feeling present to 
the mind is surely known to the mind. The Christian knows 
directly that a change has taken place. In such a knowledge 
there is no longer probability. No experience is more real 
to the mind than the consciousness of regeneration in a 
Christian. 

2) The Knowledge of the Cause. 

A cause must be known through the effect. Subject and 
object are known in cognition. If I see a thing, my con- 
sciousness takes notice of a thing outside of myself. I am 
certain that the sensation originates from some external 
object, and the effect proves to me whether it is material. 
And if the effects produced in my consciousness are intel- 
lectual and spiritual, then I know that the cause must be cor- 
responding. The possibility and actuality of spiritual con- 
ception cannot be denied. We are conscious of the spiritual 
environment in the same way as we are conscious of the 
material environment. 

When we experience a new life that cannot be caused by 
natural life or a physical environment, then we know that 
the cause must be spiritual. Even in the pre-Christian ex- 
perience we are not ignorant of God. When we know that we 
ourselves are not the cause of the new life, and no man can be 
the cause of it and certainly not the physical nature, then we 
are convinced that God must be the cause. If the apprehen- 
sion of God is mediate, such a fact does not lessen the real- 
ity, because even natural knowledge is mediated in many 
instances. It has not been proved that ordinary sense is the 
only means of knowledge. The theory of knowledge is one 
of the hardest problems. There may be a spiritual appre- 



162 

hension which is just as real as the ordinary experience 
through the senses. If man is a complex being and, there- 
fore, also spiritual, which cannot be disproved, it is evident 
that, even if it be mediated, he is capable of spiritual percep- 
tion. When a person has experienced the new life, although 
mediated by revelation, he knows the actuality, not only by 
the testimony of the Bible, but by his own consciousness of 
the new life within him. The Bible analyzes this experience 
and makes it more clear, but the reality is not diminished 
thereby. On the contrary it becomes a life as real as our 
natural life and even more real. The Christian is as certain 
of his new life as he is certain of his own existence. He lives 
and moves in a new world. The outsiders cannot by nega- 
tions cause him to doubt seriously what is his constant expe- 
rience. He is in continual contact with the supernatural 
cause and feels the operations of the spiritual laws. 

3) The Continued Experience of the same kind by a Mul- 
titude of Persons is another Scientific Test. 

Ordinary science relies upon such tests. The Christian 
experience continues and becomes more and more real. If 
we compare the ordinary knowledge how it is rarely first- 
hand knowledge, and how it depends upon hypotheses and 
unverified testimony in the experience of most persons, 
there is a better basis for the spiritual experience than for 
the things believed in ordinary life. Add to this the agree- 
ment of facts as developed in thousands of persons. One 
individual may be wrong in his conclusions, but when the 
test is repeated by a multitude in different ages, then the 
evidence becomes very strong. The Christian experience 
and science is, therefore, better attested than any other. 

4) The Simplicity of this method. 

The transformation of probable knowledge into real in 
other departments may imply special gifts, outlay of money 
for tools and instruments, and opportunities which are not 
open to all. If we would verify facts in history which we be- 



163 

lieve on the testimony of others, it may not be possible, or it 
may mean research work which very few could afford. But 
we accept historical statements without verifying. And we 
never stop to think that the Christian facts are better sub- 
stantiated. If we would attain really useful knowledge in 
the natural or physical sciences, it costs much labor, patience 
and money. But everybody has an opportunity to utilize 
the Christian facts. There are many places we never saw 
and yet we do not doubt their existence, but we may travel 
to these places and become certain as to their existence. 

The queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, but she 
journeyed to Jerusalem to find out herself, and she said to 
Solomon : "Howbeit I believed not the words, until I came, 
and mine eyes had seen it ; and behold, the half was not told 
me." As to the wisdom of God any one can test the truth 
himself. No one will be satisfied by first trying to solve 
Biblical problems. Nothing is gained by haggling about 
small matters as carpers do. Every doubter should be rea- 
sonable and test the truth by actual experience. We must 
also consider the spiritual sphere, and that the natural man 
cannot appreciate spiritual truth if he does not use the spir- 
itual laws. A coarse mind does not care for poetry. 

But the means to test are provided. The means of grace 
are available. Every one can procure a Bible. In the 
church there are guides to direct the steps. The spiritual 
light is as free as the light of the sun. No one can reason- 
ably deny that Jesus is among all lights in spiritual wis- 
dom the Light of the world. He said : "My teaching is not 
mine, but His that sent me. If any man willeth to do His 
will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of , God, or 
whether I speak from myself." John 7: 16, 17. We ordi- 
narily receive the witness of good men. Any one reading 
John must admit that he was a good, normal and truthful 
man. He writes in 1 John 5 : 9, 10 : "If we receive the wit- 
ness of men, the witness of God is greater : for the witness 
of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his 



164 

Son. He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the witness 
in him." This is, therefore, the method to believe in Christ. 
We do not need to review the delineation of the Christian ex- 
perience. By simple faith we enter the gate, leading us on 
the way to the Holy City. 

In order to lead souls to make the experiment we should 
not preach Apologetics. Neither should we make apologies, 
but preach the Word of God with tongues of fire. The science 
of Apologetics may be used at suitable times in lectures to 
strengthen doubting Christians and in the individual care 
of souls. Positive preaching will convince man to make the 
test, and doubts will vanish and the sun shine. 

§21. THE CHRISTIAN EXPERIMENTAL CERTAINTY 
AS TO LEADING OBJECTS OF FAITH. 

In discussing this important question, it is self-evident, 
that the Christian certainty, ensuing from the Christian ex- 
perience, cannot solve all Biblical problems in Biblical 
Criticism or satisfy the curiosity as to the detailed mode of 
creation. Such questions may be discussed partly in other 
departments of Apologetics, where attempts are made to 
harmonize science and faith. But the Christian experience 
will teach the Christian to trust the Bible and calmly wait 
final results in adjustment. These adjustments are not es- 
sential to him. Even if he is a natural scientist, he does not 
base his faith upon geological data, but upon the Rock of 
Ages. The age of the world, the prehistoric races and the 
evolutionary theories may be interesting to speculate about, 
but there will be no absolutely reliable result. The Christian 
experience brings before our view a new genesis and a high- 
er evolution. The past is behind us, we live in the present 
and look forward to the realization of the spiritual realities. 
And if there is any book to guide us, it is the Bible. The 
Christian experience convinces us that the Bible is the Book 
of God. 

The Reformers appealed to the "testimonium Spiritus 



165 

Sancti internum" as the best proof that the Bible was the 
Word of God. The fuller development of this testimony, in 
the evidence resulting from the Christian experience, makes 
its scope wider, and it becomes a proof of Christianity, be- 
cause the Spirit witnesses to the believer's sonship and to 
the divinity and truth of the Scriptures. The co-witnessing 
of the Spirit with the spirit of the regenerate and the con- 
stant experience of the Word of God, becomes the most pow- 
erful influence and gives to the regenerate a certainty that 
no modern destructive criticism can shake. All other proofs 
have their place and value, but this is the supreme. The 
test of this proof is open to all. 

The miracles of the Bible stand forth in new light as parts 
of the revelation as a whole, and there is no difficulty in be- 
lieving, because the Christian has experienced the miracle 
of grace which is the greatest of all. The prophecies of the 
Bible, which always are strong as an external evidence, 
stand forth in a clearer light on account of the ever present 
Spirit. The Spirit was promised, and a child of God is cog- 
nizant not only of His special outpouring at Pentecost, but 
the experience in conversion, regeneration and sanctifica- 
tion is a constant proof of His real existence. 

By the activity of the Spirit through illumination by the 
law, the doctrine of sin is clear. Even in the pre-Christian 
experience there was a knowledge of sin, but the natural 
man only feared God, and the ethnic religions prove how 
natural man tried many schemes to propitiate God. But 
by the work of the Spirit in applying the doctrines of the 
Bible, the attributes of God have become more fully known. 
The Christian understands that God is both love and holi- 
ness, and that the attributes are immutable and are exper- 
ienced according to the relation in which a sinner stands. 

Realizing the guilt of sin, a Christian feels the necessity 
of satisfaction and expiation. And in the knowledge of 
God's immutable holiness, it becomes clear, why atonement, 
or, to use the more comprehensive term, reconciliation was 
necessary. Every Christian has experienced his own inabil- 



166 

ity to reconcile God, and, therefore, he comprehends the love 
of God to a certain extent in sending His Son to be in- 
carnated in order that the divine-human Mediator should 
offer the required sacrifice. By instruction he understands 
that God is both subject and object in the satisfaction and 
atonement. It is true that the Spirit makes this knowledge 
clear by the Word of God, but this does not lessen the reality 
of the experience. The Spirit makes Christ and His work 
acceptable as a living fact. Before the Christian experience 
the doctrines of Christ were historical and perhaps dogmati- 
cally understood, but in the Christian experience Christ be- 
comes a present Saviour and not only Jesus Christ living in 
the first century. By the Spirit Jesus Christ becomes per- 
sonally known. And as before stated, God, the Father, be- 
comes real through Christ, 

If a Christian cannot comprehend the ontological Trinity 
as to the one essence and three hypostases, the economical 
Trinity is evidenced in the Christian experience. The doct- 
rine of atonement is realized in the application as a contact 
with God as Triune. There is a trinity in the experience, 
and there could not be a Christian experience except as im- 
plying a knowledge of God as one in three and three in one. 
The Christian experience makes God known as Father, Son 
and Spirit. The daily life of a Christian is constant contact 
with God as a trinity. 

The doctrine of God as Father in the experience that He is 
our reconciled Father in Christ also brings Him nearer as 
to His fatherhood in providence, and all Bible passages in 
relation to it stand forth in a clearer light. The personality 
of the Son, Jesus Christ, becomes more concrete, and no 
Christian has any doubts as to the doctrine of the divinity of 
Christ. In the work of the Spirit the doctrines of the appli- 
cation of salvation are more and more understood. 

The Christian experience becomes, therefore, an assur- 
ance of the truth of the doctrinal objects of faith. We have 
referred briefly to some of the leading doctrinal objects of 
faith, but the experimental evidence of the main objects of 
faith sheds light on all the related. 



167 

§22. PROBLEMS OF THE RATIONAL UNDERSTAND- 
ING OF OBJECTS OF FAITH, ALTHOUGH SUP- 
PORTED BY THE CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE. 

We cannot discuss all these problems, but select some as 
illustrations. To the unconverted skeptic the whole thing 
is a problem. But there are many religiously interested 
persons, who are speculatively inclined, and there are others, 
who never bother about it, but simply believe in a historical 
sense and individually confess : "Credo quia absurdum sit." 
Souls, suffering from no doubts and believing authorities, 
are happy. But there are earnestly seeking souls who are 
ready to believe, but still desire to understand. And there 
are Christians who are convinced as to the reality and truth 
of the objects of faith, and yet feel a desire to have rational 
explanations. Would it be a wise policy to ignore all these 
desires in every case ? We think not, because the Christian 
religion does not define faith as only trust, although fiducia 
is the climax in the conception. Many persons would turn 
away if no attempt of explanation was made. But by in- 
formation, as far as it can be given, persons may be led to 
test the Christian experience. And regenerated persons 
may in moments of tempting doubt need the support of 
Christian knowledge. Although, therefore, the Christian 
experience gives the best conviction, the other departments 
of Apologetics may also be of great service. 

There could be no rational apprehension if the antithesis 
was faith and knowledge. The antithesis is faith and un- 
belief. All knowledge is conditioned by faith. The reason 
of man was darkened by sin, but his reason was not lost. 
The reason is renewed by regeneration to its higher capaci- 
ty. It is the unregenerated reason which is incapacitated 
to discern the things of the Spirit. The unregenerated man 
may reason about Christian doctrines, and he may be rea- 
soned with. He may even write a theological system, but 
if he sets reason above revelation, his deductions will be 
some form of rationalism. The old rationalism held that 



168 

reason could evolve from itself all the facts, and ignored 
the experience, and, therefore, made quick work of the 
distinctive Christian doctrines. But this was abuse of rea- 
son. When reason is correctly used, we are able to show 
the reasonableness of the Christian doctrines. And if we 
have the evidence of the Christian experience, then we feel 
that we deal not with bare abstractions, but we have the 
facts. It is not comparing notion with a notion, but it is a 
verification by comparing the reality as evidenced in the ex- 
perience. The doctrine which confirms the fact of experi- 
ence is indeed reasonable. It may be a mystery, but every- 
thing is more or less a mystery. Even so-called scientific 
facts are mysteries. 

We will now proceed to illustrate some problems which 
are not presented in the other parts. 

1. The Ontological Doctrine of the Trinity. 

We have previously referred to the Christian experience 
as to the economical side of this doctrine, and how this ex- 
perience facilitates the belief in the ontological. But the 
Christian reason will at least apprehend the reasonableness 
of the ontological To the popular mind it is confusing that 
there is one God, or one absolute personality, and that we 
also speak of three persons. The old distinction is that 
there is one essence and three hypostases. But names do 
not make the meaning clear. And yet names are useful. 
The Bible attributes the same essential divinity to the Fa- 
ther, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but declares it is one God. 
When we try to fathom this mystery, we are led astray by 
thinking of mathematical units. But God is not a mathe- 
matical unity or trinity. He is not one as a man is one, and 
He is not three as three men are three. But it is one essence 
modified in three subsistences, each modified subsistence 
having the whole essence. It is hard to understand as we 
have no perfect analogy. Man, though created in the 
image of God, does not exist in the same way. Man has 
thought, will and feeling, and all posses the soul without 



169 

division. In that sense man is one in three and three in 
one, but the trouble is that thought, will and feeling do not 
exist as objectively as the three hypostates in the Godhead. 
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are objective to one 
another and yet one essence, or God. If we personify our 
three faculties, it may be clearer in the idea, but still we 
feel that it is not adequate, because our whole manifesta- 
tion is one. In the case that we could think of three human 
persons existing with one mind and soul, the same as 
thought, will and feeling have one soul, the unity and trinity 
would stand out more concretely, because the three persons 
in the Godhead have their own consciousness, but all one 
self-consciousness. No three human persons exist thus, 
but we may imagine it for the sake of better understanding 
the trinity of God. God is one in essence, but three in His 
mode of existence. There is thus a distinction. The Son 
of God on earth said : "I and the Father are one." He did 
not say : I and the Father am, or is, one. That proves two 
persons, but the same essence. It is characteristic of the 
divine essence that it exists wholly and indivisibly in three 
persons, but the human nature is divisible and does not 
exist wholly in one, but divided in all men. But the essence 
of God is not a fourth thing, within which the three exist, 
and the trinitarian person is not a part of the essence. The 
one essence is all or wholly in the three. The incarnation 
proves that, although the essence is one, there is a clear 
distinction in the mode of existence. Otherwise the second 
person could not have become God-man, because it is clear 
that the Father and the Holy Spirit did not incarnate them- 
selves. And when the Son of God has a body, He must 
appear distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and 
still the three are one God, having the same essence. As 
this is not Dogmatics, but Apologetics, we cannot continue 
further, but what has been said may show the way to prove 
the reasonableness of the ontological Trinity. But how 
much this doctrine may baffle the human understanding, it 
is no stumbling block to the believer, because he has the 



170 

experience that God deals with him as Father, Son and Holy- 
Spirit. 

2. The Problem of Belief in Angelology. 

Men speculate whether other planets or stars are inhab- 
ited by beings somewhat like ourselves, and scientists argue 
differently, some pro and some con. But if they would con- 
sult the Bible, they would get assurance that there are other 
rational beings, called angels, good and evil. These spiritual 
beings are of various orders, such as archangels, seraphim, 
cherubim, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers. We 
also find that the angels constitute an innumerable host. 
Without entering into the detailed doctrine of angels, we 
would only state that it is rational that many inhabit the 
starry worlds. We should not be so narrow-minded as to 
hold that the starry worlds were created only as fireworks 
for the people on earth. If angels exist, they must have 
some abode and not all be crowded in the so-called third 
heaven. Many of the good angels are servants of men and 
especially of the children of God, and, therefore, constantly 
descend and ascend between the throne-heaven of God and 
earth, and the evil angels have also their abode, and many 
of them are on earth, and others, as Paul states, dwell in the 
spaces around us. Compare Eph. 6 : 12. 

It is rational that angels exist, because it would be pre- 
posterous to believe, that only earth in the vast universe is 
inhabited. A study of the immensity of the universe will 
be convincing, that God did not create so many worlds to be 
waste spaces, and then only select the small planet earth 
to be inhabited. And the Bible proves that angels exist. If 
we have not seen them, the holy men and women in the 
Bible give testimony that they have seen them and heard 
them speak. Others may have seen them also. But in every 
Christian experience there are many instances of wonderful 
help in intuitions which could not be explained but by 
angelic agency. It does not belong to Apologetics to explain 
the experience of angelic assistance and spiritual warfare. 



171 

Many non-Christians are ready to believe that good angels 
exist, and they have no objection to their help, but they feel 
inclined to doubt the existence of the devil and demons. 

But if God created all angels good, it is rational to hold 
that in the necessary test of their character, many failed 
in the probation. A test was necessary, because the angels 
are rational beings. Their self-determination had to be 
determined by some probation in order that they as free 
beings should realize their freedom. If it had been other- 
wise, they had not been rational and self-determining beings. 
When God created angels, He had to take the same risk as 
when He created man. A fall was possible. Some interpose 
the question: Why did He create those angels whom He 
foresaw would fall? God could not foresee what will not 
exist. Some argue that He could have annihilated them. 
But the fact is that He has not done it for some good reason. 
We have no knowledge as to God's almighty power as to the 
annihilation of created spirits. It is possible that spirits 
once called into existence cannot be annihilated. Otherwise 
annihilation would be an easy way for God to get rid of 
them. But instead He has prepared for them the eternal 
outer darkness and sufferings in Gehenna. God knows what 
is best and right. 

All infidels and wicked unbelievers have a selfinterest in 
denying the existence of the devil and demons. Like Semler 
infidel writers have adopted the so-called "accommodation 
theory." But the character of Christ as truth personified 
proves that there was no accommodation to popular beliefs. 
The doctrine of the Bible as a whole teaches plainly the per- 
sonality of Satan and the existence of devils. And according 
to the law of cause and effect, there are many evil effects 
in the world which cannot be explained only by man's de- 
pravity, but evidently are caused by the devilish power. 
There are sinful intuitions and temptations that plainly 
originate in the evil spirit world. There are human beings 
which even in our day are possessed by demons, although it 
may be in a different manner than formerly. And the many 



172 

wicked mediums may also prove that men are possessed by- 
lying spirits. It is true that there are many monsters of 
wickedness among men, but there are many reasons for the 
belief that these monsters of criminals are influenced by 
the demons. And some act as direct instruments of the 
devil. The wicked themselves recognize the evil influence. 
Their swearing, or calling upon the devil and demons, proves 
their belief in the existence of these evil powers. Swearing 
is claimed to be only a bad habit based on traditional belief. 
But there must be some true origin for the traditional ethnic 
beliefs in evil powers. Believers in the Bible cannot doubt 
the existence of the evil spiritual world. The belief in the 
personality of Satan and the demons is, therefore, rational 
both according to the Bible and according to manifestations 
of evil powers in the world. It is perfectly rational to 
believe in the existence of beings whom we have not seen 
with our own yes. When it concerns miracles, the unbe- 
lievers desire to see them performed, but we suppose that 
not even men of the type of Hume would like to see the 
devil face to face. Still many of these deniers fear Satan 
whom they deny. But men, who worship and fear God, have 
no reason to fear in such a way. Christians daily pray the 
sixth and seventh petitions. If we translate the Greek word 
Trovrjpov in Matt. 6 : 13 not in the abstract but in the concrete, 
as the Revised Version has done, then we daily pray to be 
delivered from the evil one. It does not belong here to prove 
the correctness of this translation, but it seems to be very 
plain that our Lord meant the personal devil. And if we 
then compare all the passages, where Christ speaks of Satan, 
we have the strongest testimony for the existence of the 
evil one and his great power. It has a tremendous import 
that the most truthful of men, the God-man, instructs us 
daily to pray for deliverance from Satan. 

In respect to the doctrine of spirits, good and evil, the 
Christian view is the only rational. 



173 

3. The Problem of the Belief in the Church as a 

Divine Institution. 

In our creeds we confess that the Church also is an object 
of faith, but, of course, not in the same sense as faith in 
God. The third article in the apostolic creed makes the 
Church an object. The words in Latin are: sanctam eccle- 
siam catholicam, and in the Nicene creed: unam, sanctam, 
catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam. 

Even many Christians look upon the Church only as a 
society which it is not necessary to belong to. The unbe- 
livers, or infidels, all their cohorts and all indifferentists 
look upon the Church as a human society. All believers in 
the Bible ought to know that the Church is an institution of 
Christ. It is also evident that the Church must have an 
external manifestation, although the Church essentially is 
the congregatio or communio sanctorum. The Word of God 
must be preached and the Sacraments administered. There- 
fore, the Church has always been known to the world in her 
external character. In the apostolic times the Church was 
known by the congregations in different places. If the Chris- 
tians had not assembled in worship, the Church would not 
have become known. The external church, therefore, has 
significance as containing normally the congregatio sanc- 
torum. The externality becomes necessary on account of 
the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of 
the Sacraments. As a necessity it becomes Christians to 
belong to the Church also as external, because in the external 
church are found the means of grace. To disavow the ex- 
ternal church may imply a disavowal of the true Church. 
If we come to an unknown city or place and desire to find 
Christian fellow-believers, we do not seek them in worldly 
societies, theaters or market places, but we know that we 
find them in congregations, where the Word of God is 
preached. Not all members of a church may be true Chris- 
tians, but all normal members of the true Church are found 
in the assembly, where the Word of God is preached and the 



174 

Sacraments administered. Whatever we may think in re- 
gard to particular churches, it is rational to hold that the 
Church as ordinarily known is a divine institution. The 
different confessional beliefs cannot invalidate the Church 
in its true character and the necessity of the use of the 
means of grace. The true, ideal church is best denned in the 
following way: 'The Church is the congregation of saints. 
in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments 
are rightly administered.''' But not all particular external 
churches reach the mark of ideality, because not all teach 
the Word of God in its purity. And in the external member- 
ship it is impossible to have a pure church in the sense that 
all the members are true children of God. These drawbacks, 
however, do not invalidate the unity of the true Church. 
Although there are necessarily a plurality of particular 
churches on account of different interpretations of the Bible 
in confessions, and on account of different rites, etc.. there 
is no plurality of churches in the true sense, because the 
Church is the congregation of believers in all ages and places, 
and therefore she cannot have any predecessor or successor. 
No external federation will ever succeed except there will 
be a Millennium, when Christ, the head of the Church, di- 
rectly interferes and unites also externally the members of 
all denominations. The disunion of the external Church 
becomes a stumbling block to many unbelievers and out- 
siders, because they do not understand the real unity. We 
have heard from missionaries in India and elsewhere, that 
the Hinduists point to the disunion among the Christians as 
an argument against Christianity, but they do not stop to 
think that there is also disunity among themselves. And 
nominal Christians, who have no church-connection, also 
use a similar argument to defend their unbelief and indif- 
f erentism. But the reason is that they never care to study 
the real question of unity. Another stumbling stone is the 
failings of church members, but it is only a flimsy excuse 
for critical attitude. In the case of the heathen it may 
look as a formidable argument against Christianity, and 



175 

they should, therefore, be informed as to the cause of this 
contradiction. Others are alienated, because Christianity, 
or the Church, is so slow in its conquest of the world, and 
they cannot understand why Christ does not hasten the 
work. But they forget the human factor in the missionary 
work and man's power to resist. Christ gave His command 
to make disciples of all nations, and the Christians have 
been neglectful in many cases, but it would be irrational to 
expect that Christ in the present economy should directly 
interfere. There must be no determinism or forcing, if 
there shall be a real test of faith. Men forced to be Chris- 
tians will only be nominal Christians. Christ does all what 
He has promised, and the Holy Spirit is constantly urging. 
The Church perhaps is spasmodic in her missions, and still 
she is conquering and seems to wake up more and more to 
realize her great mission. But the failings of the Church 
in her human ways does not invalidate the claim that she 
is an institution of God. It is, therefore, abnormal, if 
Christians have no church-connection. From every view- 
point it is rational that God instituted the Church as the 
best means to convey to men the knowledge of salvation. 

Some mockers ridicule the Church as to her future and in 
regard to her hope that Christ will return, and they say 
according to Peter: "Where is the promise of his coming? 
for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things 
continue as they were from the beginning of creation." But 
Peter says that God is longsuffering in the hope that as 
many as possible may repent. Most of the prophecies have 
been fulfilled and continue to prove their truth. The Bible 
is the best defense of faith. In due time the Biblical escha- 
tology will vindicate itself. It is also rational to believe it 
from past history and present. 

We may not understand as we would like all the objects 
of faith as, according to Paul, "we know in part and prophe- 
sy in part." But Paul looks ahead to a glorious future. In 
the Christian experience many things are made clear. The 
best use of Apologetics is, therefore, to lead men to Christ 



176 

that they may test for themselves the glorious truth of the 
Gospel. Even then there may remain Biblical problems, but 
the greatest problem is solved by the evidence of the Chris- 
tian experience. 



177 



V. Eschatological Apologetics. 



Christianity holds forth the great facts of the immor- 
tality of the soul, the second advent of the Redeemer, the 
resurrection of the dead and the future glorious kingdom 
of God. By these great doctrines it is also proved that 
Christianity is the supreme religion. 

§23. THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

This doctrine underlies all the religions of the world. It 
has been held by the deepest thinkers and has been sup- 
ported by various proofs, but only the Christian religion 
presents the valid arguments from Revelation. 

1. Proofs for Immortality. 

A. The historical argument. 

From the world's earliest morning the thought of man 
linked life to a longer chain of time than between the 
cradle and the grave. The investigations as to the origin 
of the belief have been many, but it was evidently im- 
planted in man as an original instinct by the Creator. Con- 
trary to all negative opinions by superficial research, the 
best scientific result inclines strongly to the view that all 
tribes and nations in some form or another held and hold 
a belief in a hereafter with different conditions. The Egyp- 
tians testify to the fact in their monuments and papyri. 
On one is written: "His soul is living eternally." Homer 
taught that there is a future life. Socrates reasons most 
beautifully concerning the state of the immortal life. Plato 
in his "Phaedon" demonstrates the doctrine of immortality 



178 

with the profoundest arguments. Pindar in his second Ode, 
Cicero in his Orations, Virgil in his "Aeneid," and other 
great men in all ages defend the doctrine. 

B. The indestructibility of matter as a proof. 

We can change the form of matter, but we cannot destroy 
it. Annihilation is absolutely unthinkable and unscientific. 
What we call destruction and death does not involve extinc- 
tion but only change. If the soul exists, being superior to 
matter, it is unreasonable to believe that the soul should 
cease to exist. The decomposition of the body does not 
impair essence; the former is only possible where there is 
a complex. The spirit of man is not complex, but a simple 
essence. No instrument can divide the spirit. Death can 
take away the earthly house of the soul, but the soul or 
personality survives whatever may be the experience. This 
leads to the following proof. 

C. The metaphysical proof, based on the simplicity and 
immateriality of the soul. 

The evidence for the existence of mind is clearer than the 
proofs for the existence of matter. We believe that matter 
exists because it makes certain impressions upon our senses. 
But we know the existence of mind by our consciousness 
of, or reflection on, what passes within us. To know that 
we are and that we think implies a knowledge of the soul's 
existence. But the existence of matter we only know by 
the operation of mind. The indwelling spirit must, there- 
fore, exist more fully than the material body. Our body 
changes, but the soul is unchanged. The simplicity of the 
soul and its independence of matter prove its immortality. 

D. The teleological proof from the inadequacy of the pres- 
ent life, which, without immortality, would be a begin- 
ning without end or purpose. 

Man's restless spirit is a proof of immortality. Expecta- 
tion and not satisfaction is all that man finds in the world. 
Man is God's noblest creation, and still this life would be 



179 

misery, if there was no life hereafter. And man has im- 
mortal longings, but man never reaches a conclusion here. 
The philosophy of mind shows that it was made, not for a 
day, but for eternity. The attributes of the soul do not 
reach their full development in this life. The end of man's 
creation would not be realized, if man was not immortal. 

There is no such thing as failure in nature. Everything 
in nature serves some purpose. And as man is a complex 
being and belongs to two worlds, he must live hereafter. 

E. The moral argument. 

In this life virtues do not receive their full reward and 
vices the punishment deserved. Therefore, there must be 
an existence hereafter, where everything will be set right. 

F. The argument of love. 

Our continued love for the dead is a proof of our immor- 
tality. Love is indestructible, and we are bound by death- 
less love to our friends who have crossed the river. We 
feel instinctively that the dead are not lost, but that they 
exist in other spheres. No human being follows the body 
of a loved one to the grave but he believes that the departed 
still lives somewhere. The departed relative or friend is 
as to him living, not only in past memories, but also beyond, 
and our thoughts go constantly to the spiritual abode. The 
hope is strong to see the loved ones again in the other world. 

G. The individual instinctive proof of immortality. 

We have before considered the universal belief in im- 
mortality, but we must also weigh this argument from a 
more individual viewpoint to make it more convincing. The 
hope of a continuous existence beyond is one of the most 
ineradicable of all instincts and the profoundest of all in- 
tuitions. 

The law of instinct is clearly apparent in the animal 
world, and the animal uses it, although unconsciously. Man 
also possesses the instinctive endowment, but educated man 
rarely takes notice of it and suffers for his neglect. But 



180 

we will not discuss our instinctive faculties. In this con- 
nection we only call attention to our religious instinct and 
emphasize our instinct of immortal existence. A clear and 
continuous instinct never deceives. This instinct is not a 
result of education, but is implanted in our nature by God. 
Just as we cannot get rid of the idea of God and the voice 
of conscience, just as little can we remove the instinct of 
immortality, which proves that this instinct is true. Be- 
sides, we have a self-conscious desire to live for ever. We 
cannot earnestly and continuously desire or wish for some- 
thing that does not exist. Man evidently possesses a psych- 
ical mind which is the real personality. The physical mind, 
or brain, may imagine many things, but the psychical mind 
never errs. Many young students who superficially study 
natural sciences are influenced by materialistic biologists, 
physiologists and psychologists to believe the view that the 
soul cannot be separated from the body or brain. There are 
many phenomena resulting from accidents, loss of memory 
and unconscious states which seemingly favor the belief that 
the brain and soul are identical, but the accidental broken 
condition of the brain does not necessarily prove that the 
soul or person is unconscious. If a machine breaks, the 
operator himself is not affected. The brain is only the 
machine which the real personality uses. At death the soul 
temporarily is deprived of the bodily organ, but the psychical 
mind has then full sway. The modern research of psychical 
societies may later lead to some tangible results, but it is, 
any way, certain that the natural instinct of immortality 
is a proof that cannot be ignored. There are many promi- 
nent scientists who hold that modern science cannot offer 
any decisive arguments against the doctrine of immortality. 
We call the student's attention to the lecture of Prof. William 
James, "Human Immortality," in which he discusses the 
theory of the brain as a transmissive organ. In answering 
his critics he says in the Preface of the second edition : "The 
plain truth is that one may conceive the mental world behind 
the veil in as individualistic a form as one pleases, without 



181 

any detriment to the general scheme by which the brain is 
represented as a transmissive organ. — The reader would 
be in accord with everything that the text of my lecture 
intended to say, were he to assert that every memory and 
affection of his present life is to be preserved, and that he 
shall never in ssecula saeculorum cease to be able to say to 
himself: I am the same personal being who in old times 
upon the earth had those experiences." 

H. The theological proof. 

When we are assured of the existence of God and rec- 
ognize His attributes, it is self-evident that man must be 
immortal. God created man in His own image, man was 
the climax of creation, and the universe was prepared for 
man. The love of God, therefore, implies that man was not 
created to live a few years on earth and then cease to exist. 
Then humanity would be in a worse condition than the irra- 
tional animals, because the animals have no self -conscious- 
ness and no idea of a future life. The wisdom and justice 
of God prove the same fact as the love and goodness of God. 

I. The soteriological proof. 

God would never have sent His Son to save fallen man, if 
man had been created only for an earthly existence. Christ 
died in order that man by faith in Him should attain a 
blessed eternal life. It is not necessary to develop this 
argument. 

J. The eschatological argument. 

The history of the world would have no meaning if man 
was not immortal. Neither could there be a real history if 
humanity vanished like the animal world. We cannot enter- 
tain the thought that the makers of history have no history 
beyond. If all the great men and women of the past pass 
in review before us, we cannot endure the idea that they 
exist no more. And when we look upon our beloved living, 
we cannot hold the thought that death ends all and that 



182 

there will be no future reunion. The creation of rational 
beings would have no meaning if there was no immortal life 
and a consummation setting things right. 

K. The Biblical, absolute proof. 

The absolute proof we find in the Scriptures. If the Bible 
is not the word of God, then everything is a blank, and life 
is a mockery. The ethnic religious books furnish no satis- 
factory hope. It is only a philosophical speculation which 
they offer sorrowing souls. The ethnic religions picture 
a heaven of happiness which is questionable, and there is 
no agreement. But the Bible has been proved to be the sure 
Word of God. The textbook of the Christian religion is the 
Bible, and, therefore, Christianity presents the absolute 
proof of immortality. It is not necessary to quote the pas- 
sages in the Bible. They are familiar to every Bible reader. 

2. The Christian Conception of Immortality is the 

Only Satisfactory One and Constitutes an 

Important Evidence for the Superiority 

of Christianity and Its Divine 

Origin. 

The mere continued existence of the soul is not what the 
heart craves for. To many, Nirvana would be better than 
an existence without real content and without activity. 
Hence the non-Christian fancy has adorned the life here- 
after with ever new colors of earthly happiness. Mythology 
pictures a heaven of earthly pleasures. Christianity pre- 
sents a future life of blessedness and happiness as a con- 
sequence. The center of the hope is the vision of God and 
the fellowship of the blessed. Its ideal is the kingdom of 
God and its blessed activity. No other religion presents 
such a doctrine of immortality, and the very conception 
proves that the doctrine is not of human, but of divine 
origin. 



183 
§24. THE SECOND ADVENT OF THE REDEEMER. 

Christianity claims that Jesus Christ will return to com- 
plete redemption in a practical sense. The teachings of the 
Bible are very explicit on this point. 

All deniers of the Incarnation of the Logos reject also, 
of course, the second coming of Christ. Both events are 
supernatural and belong to the miraculous facts. The argu- 
ments pro and con are, therefore, practically the same. But 
if we believe the fact of the first advent, it is less difficult 
to accept the doctrine of the second advent. 

When we take into consideration all that the second ad- 
vent implies, it is evident that the Christian religion is the 
most complete system of redemption. No other religion 
furnishes such a glorious Eschatology. 

And as all other Christian facts have been proved to be 
true, it is reasonable to infer that the culmination also will 
be realized. It is also perfectly reasonable that Christ will 
return. If the Incarnation was possible, the return is also 
possible. And we may say that the second advent is neces- 
sary. When it does occur there is no longer any need of 
Apology and Apologetics. 

§25. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

The Resurrection of the dead is a doctrine peculiar to 
Christianity. Other religions teach some kind of immor- 
tality of the soul, but the Christian religion teaches clearly 
the resurrection of the body. The Jewish religion taught the 
same, but not as clearly as Christianity. In the New Testa- 
ment this doctrine stands forth preeminently. Perhaps no 
article of the Christian religion made a greater impression 
on the pagan than this doctrine. The philosophers of Athens 
were greatly surprised when Paul presented the glorious 
doctrine of Resurrection. 

The Egyptians believed in the transmigration of the soul, 
but that only means that the soul gets into another body 
than its own. Except the Jews, therefore, no one had any 



184 

idea of the resurrection of the body. The plain and clear 
statement of this doctrine belongs to Christianity. 

The early fathers defended the doctrine of the Resurrec- 
tion of the body with great vigor and unanimity against 
the objections of the Skeptics, of whom Celsus was the most 
scoffing and acute in his attacks. It is not necessary to 
review the objections, whether of the olden times or of 
the modern periods, as they are all related to the objections 
against the resurrection of Christ and miracles in general. 

1. The Probability of the Resurrection of the Body. 

It is not more strange that the human body should exist 
a second time than that it has existed before. The wonders 
of embryology are, a priori, as incredible as those of the res- 
urrection. When a full grown human body is developed from 
a microscopic cell, it is as difficult, upon the face of it, to 
account for it, as that a spiritual resurrection body should 
be produced from the earthly body. The difference between 
the dead body and the raised body is not as great as between 
the embryonic ovum and the completed human form. If 
we were not accustomed to the formation of man in this 
wonderful way it might be denied with as much plausibility 
as the resurrection. 

2. The Possibility of the Resurrection. 

Against all objections the words of Paul are appropriate: 
"Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God 
should raise the dead?" If God has created man, His al- 
mighty power is sufficient to reoriginate him, even if it 
should imply every identical particle of the former body, 
because nothing perishes, although the changes are many, 
and God is able to do what He pleases. But the identity of 
persons does not necessarily mean the restoration of the 
very same particles. Constant change occurs during man's 
growth, but the identity is the same. An identical body 
is recognized by the person himself and others. 

That the spiritual body does not need to consist of the same 



185 

particles to prove identity is proved by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 : 
35 — 40. The grains of seed are not composed of exactly 
the same atoms that constituted the seed-kernel, but yet 
there is the perpetuity. Paul's argument is only an illustra- 
tion. The point is, that the transformation of the seed- 
grain does not entirely destroy the old substance. The idea 
is that while the resurrection of the body is a supernatural 
act, it does not mean an origination from nothing, because 
the resurrection body is founded upon and constructed out 
of the previous body. The connecting link may be very 
small, just as the cell from which man originates by con- 
ception. God in His almighty power is able to preserve what 
is necessary to produce an identity. This is not unreason- 
able, if there is an absolute God. 

But the connecting link must not be a material cell, be- 
cause God has other means to preserve the identity of the 
body, or person. If a material cell was necessary, there may 
be some plausibility for the objection that many bodies have 
been burnt to ashes or been devoured by wild beasts and 
savage men. Although we are not brought to such an ex- 
treme argument, we could call attention to the tenets of 
Chemistry that no particle is annihilated, but only changed 
to other forms, and that God, therefore, could evolve the 
new body from those new forms. But we should not forget 
that behind the visible is the indestructible invisible. In 
Anthropological Apologetics we called attention to the hu- 
man ovum as a small speck, hardly visible, and that behind 
the nucleus or germinal speck is the invisible principle. 
We are taught in the Bible that all sinned in Adam. The 
Greek word in Rom. 5 : 12 is y^aprov, and the word being 
in active, supports the traducian view. Now if all sinned 
in Adam, all must have existed in him, because nonentity 
cannot sin ; and merely physical substance cannot sin. But 
if we all existed in Adam, we could not have existed as so 
many material atoms, and we did not then exist as self- 
conscious and self-determining individuals. And yet we 
actually existed, because we all sinned in Adam. How did 



186 

we then exist? We existed as invisible principles, and 
being in Adam, our caput naturale et morale, we sinned 
with him. To exist as an invisible principle is a real ex- 
istence. The child to be born in due time exists in the in- 
visible principle, of which the ovum is the external form, 
when conception takes place. All human beings to be propa- 
gated from Adam were foreknown by God, and in that sense, 
therefore, they existed in the mind of God. In the realiza- 
tion of His ideas God in creation originated an invisible 
specific nature and provided for its division and propagation 
into separate individuals. A species, though an invisible 
principle, is a real entity. When we existed in Adam as 
invisible principles, although our individual existence de- 
pends upon propagation and generation, it seems plausible 
to hold that there may be an invincible principle, which is 
the connecting link between the old and new body, preserv- 
ing the identity. We must also bear in mind that the soul 
after death in the intermediate state is a real, individual 
and self-conscious entity which unites with the resurrection- 
body, evolved from the old body by God's supernatural and 
transforming power. The substantial identity is there, and 
the raised ones recognize themselves and are recognized by 
others. Identity does not require the same particles. A 
grown up man recognizes his body as the same body that he 
had in childhood, and yet it is different in appearance. 

3. The Biblical Absolute Proof. 

Already in the Old Testament the resurrection of the body 
was taught, and, therefore, it was the common belief of the 
Jews in the time of Christ. The old saints were careful in 
regard to the burial of the dead, because they expected a 
future resurrection. Job has the intuition in the words: 
"But I know that my Redeemer liveth, and coming after 
me, He shall stand upon the dust; and after this my skin 
is destroyed, yet without my flesh I shall see God: Whom 
I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not 
another." Job 19 : 25 — 27. And to Daniel it was said : "But 



187 

go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and 
shalt stand in thy lot at the end of the days." Dan. 12 : 13. 
In the New Testament we have the most direct and plain 
evidence. Christ's utterances are absolutely to the point 
and clear. If we are Christians, we cannot doubt His prom- 
ises. When He reasons with the Sadducees and says that 
God "is not the God of the dead, but of the living," He 
proves then the resurrection and the continued life of man 
in his entire self and not only as spirit. It is not necessary 
to quote all passages, but in John 5 : 28, 29 we read : "Marvel 
not at this; for the hour cometh, in which all that are in 
the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they 
that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they 
that have done ill unto the resurrection of judgment." He 
Himself is the proof of resurrection. In Soteriological 
Apologetics we have presented the arguments for the resur- 
rection of Christ. A resurrection has, therefore, actually 
taken place, and we also know that saints rose with Him, 
as we read in Matth. 27: 52, 53: "And the tombs were 
opened ; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep 
were raised; and coming forth after his resurrection they 
entered the holy city and appeared unto many." The writ- 
ings of the apostles teach the resurrection of the dead, but 
we will especially call attention to the testimony of St. Paul. 
The genuineness of most of the Pauline epistles is being 
vindicated more and more by the most rigid critics. Paul 
himself speaks of his gospel as a thing which he did not 
learn only from the apostles and other witnesses, but re- 
ceived by revelation. He had himself seen Christ and 
heard His voice. Paul bases his doctrine on historical facts 
and personal experience. His fundamental basis for the 
belief in the resurrection of the dead is the resurrection of 
Christ. In his first epistle to the Corinthians he presents 
the result, if Christ had not been raised from the dead, and 
then he shows the opposite as a consequence of the sure fact 
of His resurrection. Paul's arguments for the resurrection 
of the dead are so strong that they ought to convince all 



188 i 

reasonable men. His conversion, his writings and his per- 
sonality would be incomprehensible if his testimonies were 
not true. If we cannot rely upon such writings as the epis- 
tles of Paul, then we could not trust any historical testimony. 

He emphasizes not only that Christ rose from the dead, 
but also that He who was raised was the Son of God, and, 
therefore, the promises of Christ as to the resurrection of 
the dead are absolutely reliable. Paul also brings the 
future resurrection into relation to the present gift of the 
Holy Spirit, and, therefore, he holds that the future quicken- 
ing of the mortal body is the result of the present quickening 
of the indwelling Spirit. In Rom. 8: 11 we read: "If the 
Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead shall dwell 
in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in 
you." We may be assured that where Christ and the Spirit 
dwell, there death has no power to hinder the resurrection. 
The doctrine of the resurrection has, therefore, a life-centre 
in the mystical union and the Christian experience. It has 
not only an objective basis, but is rooted in the deep realities 
of the new life and the spiritual consciousness. 

The testimony of the immediate disciples of the Lord con- 
firm the same view, and John among them, who lived longer 
than the rest, had a special revelation confirming the facts. 
He was enabled, writing later than the other evangelists 
and Paul, soberly to weigh all the proofs. His truthful and 
well-balanced character makes his testimony forceful and 
convincing. The doctrine of the resurrection is consequently 
proved as an assured fact. 

§26. THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES. 

If man is raised again it is rational to believe the identity 
of character will also remain, and that the words of Revela- 
tion in regard to the wicked and righteous will be realized. 
"These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the 
righteous into life eternal. , ' 



189 



1. The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. 



There have been many attacks against Christianity on 
account of the doctrine of endless punishment. 

The chief objections are not Biblical, but speculative, as 
the majority of the scholars find the tenet in the Hebrew 
and Greek Scriptures. Even the learned English rational- 
istic critic Davidson admits that "if a specific sense be at- 
tached to words, never-ending misery is enunciated in the 
Bible." But the doctrine is rational and defensible on the 
basis of sound ethics. The cardinal points of Theism imply 
it: There is a just God; man has self-determination, and 
sin is a voluntary action. If man was necessitated to sin 
and there was no redemptive agency, endless punishment 
would be an impossibility. It is necessary to understand 
correctly what punishment means. Punishment is neither 
chastisement nor calamity. Calamity may include punish- 
ment, but not always. Chastisement may be felt as a pun- 
ishment, but is inflicted to develop reformation. Punish- 
ment is retribution. It is the vindication of law and satis- 
faction of justice. Punishment is retrospective and not 
prospective. It concerns requital and not improvement. 

The question then is, if God ever punishes. No one de- 
nies that He chastises. The Bible states clearly that He also 
punishes. 

The endlessness of future punishment depends upon the 
endlessness of guilt and upon the indivisibility of guilt. But 
it is objected that endlessness of guilt or damnation does 
not imply eternal suffering. But we cannot illustrate from 
human judicial procedure, as God is perfect and exact. The 
only human punishment that approaches the divine is capital 
punishment, because it is not reformatory and it is endless, 
as it forever cuts off a man from earthly society. 

The rationality of endless punishment appears from the 
following considerations. 

a) The doctrine is supported by human conscience. A 
guilty conscience expects eternal punishment. The very 



190 

knowledge that suffering would cease would at once relieve 
the apprehension of the sinner. Mankind believes in eternal 
punishment by reason of the moral sense. Retribution is 
grounded in the human consciense. 

b) Endless punishment is rational, because sin is eternal 
and the wicked remain in the state of bondage of the sinful 
will. 

Being in an intensified state of impenitence and increased 
rebellion, the conditions are such that there can be no 
change. Sin is an infinite evil, committed against the In- 
finite Being. Man cannot atone for sin by eternal suffer- 
ings, but the punishment is eternal on account of the eternal 
impenitence, as no new probation is possible. 

c) The endless punishment is reasonable because the 
wicked in their state of rebellion would not feel at home 
among the righteous. 

The sweet submission to God is repulsive to the lost. If 
their mind cannot be changed, heaven would be no heaven 
to them. If the laws of the moral world would have allowed 
it, the love of God had provided some means of escape. 
What is just is beyond all rational attack. 

d) Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer, teaches this doctrine 
most emphatically. He, the absolute truth, would not have 
taught it if it had not been so. 

e) The vicarious atoning death of our Saviour proves it. 
God would not have sent His Son to suffer death, if the 
punishment of sin had implied only a sentence of a shorter 
or longer period in hell. But as eternal punishments were 
the just consequence of sin and unbelief, He died for all, 
in order that all who believe in Him should be saved and 
escape eternal suffering. We do not need to discuss why 
not all are saved, when He died for all. His vicarious atone- 
ment was not a mathematical atonement, but equivalent to 
satisfy the justice of God, and the subjective condition of 
acceptance by faith is necessary as a matter of course. The 
rejection of the merits of Christ justly condemns the un- 
believing sinner. 



191 

Other arguments could be brought forward, but these 
may suffice. This tenet of the Christian religion has been 
the object of the most bitter attack. It could not have main- 
tained itself against all opposition, if it had not had a strong 
foothold in the human reason. As it is founded on ethics, 
in law, and taught by the author of Christianity, this tenet 
remains in the doctrinal code of Christianity. 

But this doctrine does not invalidate the claim that Chris- 
tianity is the best religion and the only true one. It rather 
proves the claim. If Christianity had been the invention 
of man, the impostors would have excluded such a tenet. 

2. Life Eternal and the Kingdom of God. 

a. The contrast of some non-Biblical views. 

No ethnic religion and no philosophy teach such a blessed 
hereafter as the Christian religion. This is evident, if we 
consider the future-dreams of such religions and philoso- 
phies. 

The Mythology of the North in its Eschatology contains 
many traits which point to a true condition, and it gives a 
hope of a new earth and offers abodes for the good, but like 
the old Valhalla of the gods and heroes, the halls of Gimle, 
Sindre and Brimer picture only a heaven where mostly 
carnal happiness prevails. The true blessedness is un- 
known. The Greek and Roman Mythologies do not present 
a heaven which is very attractive, although some of the 
philosophers rose to some high and ideal conceptions, but 
happiness was the main import of their future aspirations. 
We are all familiar with the ideas of the American Indians 
as to the future happy hunting grounds, but none except the 
Indians and other savage peoples would enjoy such a future. 

And the Paradise of the Moslem is also sensual. The fol- 
lowing are some passages from the Koran : "Their reward 
for their patience shall be paradise and silken robes, reclin- 
ing therein on bridal couches ; naught shall they know of sun 
or piercing cold; its shades shall close over them, and low 
shall its fruits hang down ; and vessels of silver and goblets 



192 

like flagons shall be borne round among them. There are 
rivers of water which corrupt not, rivers of milk, whose 
taste changeth not; and rivers of wine, delicious to those 
who drink it; and rivers of clarified honey; and there are 
all kinds of fruit for them from their Lord." 

Lastly we must also call attention to the miserable hope 
of the East Indians; also for the reason that so many ad- 
herents are found even in Christian lands. The most horri- 
ble doctrine is the teaching of the transmigration of the souls 
and their reincarnation. This reincarnation may result in 
again living on earth in some animal or again to be reborn 
as a human being, depending upon the moral state of the 
previous existence. Our planet, therefore, becomes a kind 
of hell and place of purgatory, where we are reborn until 
we are purified sufficiently to reach better conditions. It is 
a pessimistic religion and makes the existence a burden and 
an evil. The only consolation which Buddhism offers is 
perfect Nirvana, a kind of nothingness, the absence of self- 
consciousness and sensation. Many hold that this means 
final extinction, but Max Miiller claims that Nirvana is not 
absolute extinction, but a state of unruffled calm, of happy 
freedom from worry, desire, pain and sin. It is, any way, 
a kind of non-existence, but the ordinary Buddhist hopes for 
a state of not being reborn and the entrance into the heaven 
of Nirvana as a condition of repose and peace. 

Any one familiar with the practical results of pantheistic 
and pessimistic Buddhism can easily see the superiority 
of Christianity. Not better is the Theosophy related to 
Buddhism. 

Many minds, being tired of all the schemes of philosophy 
and ethnic religions, have turned to the modern Spiritualism. 
Swedenborg also paved the way for the so-called Spiritual- 
ism of our day, although his doctrines are of a different 
type. But to a true Christian his doctrines of heaven and 
hell are not attractive, but repulsive. 

Spiritualism and the societies of Psychical Research may 
assist Christianity in its fight against Materialism. By these 



193 

agencies many have been turned from atheistic beliefs and 
accepted, at least, the doctrines of immortality and the ex- 
istence of a spiritual world. But many have also become 
superstitious and trusted so-called mediums and have re- 
jected the true spiritualism of the Bible. Some have been 
led into the worship of demons, believing false mediums and 
not the Word of God. If Psychical research will help doubt- 
ers to believe in a future state, this does not prove that the 
explanation of these societies as to the appearance of the 
dead is correct. There are books by real scientists in the 
study of abnormal psychology which narrate wonderful 
facts, vouchsafed for by men of eminent standing in 
Psychology and natural science. This appeals to many. 
Although the last word has by no means been spoken, there 
may be other satisfactory explanations. We do not, of 
course, deny that God, if He wishes, will allow appearances 
of the dead. Samuel evidently appeared to Saul, but if that 
can be otherwise explained, it is absolutely sure that Moses 
and Elias appeared and talked on the Mount of Transfigura- 
tion. But we must also keep in mind that Christ in the nar- 
rative or parable of the rich man and Lazarus relates how 
Dives asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brethren 
on earth, but the answer was : "If they hear not Moses and 
the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise 
from the dead." In the book of Revelation Christ says to 
John : "I have the keys of death and Hades." We may feel 
certain that Christ is not a doorkeeper at the command of 
mediums and scientists. Then He would sooner hear the 
prayers of His saints and in such a case no medium would 
be necessary. Or His angels could be sent as messengers. 
But we have no proimse that He will do such things. And 
if it would happen for some good reason, it would be by the 
permission of Christ. 

But if we cannot deny the claim of honest scientists that 
among the many false mediums there appears sometimes 
a true medium, how shall we explain substantiated facts? 
According to the Bible the angelic spirits, good and evil, at 



194 

least many of them, are all around us, and Christians must 
fight against the evil spirits in the heavenly places (Eph. 
6: 12). It is not impossible that these evil spirits may 
possess the power to impersonate the dead and imitate their 
form, speech and manners in order to deceive superstitious 
people. There may also be people possessed by demons, 
just as in the time of the Lord and the apostles. They may 
be called mediums of evil spirits. We recollect also the in- 
teresting revelation in 1 Kings 22 : 19 — 23, when the time of 
Ahab's punishment was at hand. Ahab did not heed the 
warnings of Micaiah, and, therefore, an evil spirit was sent 
to lead him astray. We quote verses 21, 22: "And there 
came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, and said, I 
will entice him. And the Lord said to him, Wherewith? 
And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the 
mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt entice 
him, and shall prevail also; go forth and do so." This ex- 
plains many things about the actitvities in the spiritual 
world. In the book of Daniel there are many instances re- 
lated, throwing light upon the work of spiritual agencies. 
And in 2 Cor. 11 : 14 we read: "Even Satan fashioneth him- 
self into an angel of light." Evil spirits may, therefore, 
possess men, who consequently become mediums to deceive 
people who are easily influenced. And by the law of attrac- 
tion, assisted by a strong imagination, men may hear mes- 
sages which they think are direct information from the dead, 
especially if they have made an agreement and have a highly 
strung nervous temperament. 

When we, therefore, recognize the power of evil spirits to 
use men as mediums, it may be asked, if not the good angels 
may bring messages from the dead. We have no Biblical 
support for such a belief, and there are no substantiated 
cases to give the least support for such a view, but we know 
that the good angels serve men, especially the Christians, 
in many ways. And the good angels are too busy in the 
service of God and men to find time to satisfy curious people. 
Whether there is a celestial telepathy, we know not. All 



195 

we know is that love is stronger than death, and that, there- 
fore, the blessed dead think of us and love us still, just as 
well as the rich man in Hades could think of his brethren 
on earth. If we can feel at any time their thoughts and they 
ours, no one knows. If there is a celestial telepathy from 
the world above, it would explain some experiences that are 
otherwise hard to understand. But we cannot discuss such 
a topic here. 

In this connection we may state that many purported and 
seemingly true revelations at spiritualistic sittings, in cases 
when there is no fraud, can be explained by physical tele- 
pathy or by clairvoyance. There was a time when telepathy 
was ridiculed, and some do not believe in it yet, but all who 
have done some investigations themselves can easily see how 
the laws of telepathy, applied by, perhaps, an intensive and 
magnetic medium, may influence receptive minds. And 
hypnotism is often used. In case there is no seance, but a 
person hears the voice of some absent living relative or 
friend, and even sees him, as has happened when such an 
absentee was in great danger, or dying, it depends upon the 
intensive thought of the absent, which thought travels upon 
the ether-waves to the mind tuned to receive. The principle 
is the same as in wireless telegraphy, but the battery in 
telepathy is the human brain, and the operator is the in- 
tensive thinker. 

We have noticed the false spiritualism of our day, because 
people who are led astray by it will not accept the true 
spiritualism of the Bible. They become so interested in 
mysteries of an abnormal kind that they forget what is more 
important. But in the defense of the true doctrine we gain 
nothing if we altogether deny the spiritual, although ab- 
normal, phenomena of spiritualistic beliefs. The wise plan 
is to trace them to their sources and explain them naturally, 
when it is possible, and otherwise in the true Biblical light. 
It is an important question, because false spiritualism may 
pave the way for demon-worship, concerning which Paul 
speaks in 1 Tim. 4:1: "But the Spirit saith expressly, that 



196 

in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving 
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." And peo- 
ple who get their impressions of the spiritual world from 
the seances of mediums, will not have a high view of the 
great hereafter, and they will not realize their sins and the 
need of regeneration. The atonement of Christ and justi- 
fication by faith alone will not mean much to them. 

Although we could continue to present contrasts to the 
true view, it is not needed, because even nominal adherents 
of Christianity will admit the superiority of Christian views 
concerning the spiritual world and the great and glorious 
hereafter. And we cannot expect to convince those who 
hold the ethnic religions and philosophical beliefs if they 
cannot be prevailed upon to test the Christian doctrines by 
personal experiment. 

b) The Biblical picture of the future glory. 

The only religion which presents death in its true light 
is the Christian religion. On account of Christ's vicarious 
death it would not really be necessary for believers to die, 
which is also proved by the fact that at the second advent 
the living saints do not die, and Enoch and Elias escaped 
death. But in the wisdom of God death was permitted to 
remain as a discipline, and if believers would escape death 
during the present economy, the supernatural would be so 
overwhelming that the test of faith would be lessened. As 
it has been proved that Christ is divine, He is the authority 
to inform us what death means to a believer. He says, as 
we read in John 11 : 25, 26: "I am the resurrection and the 
life : he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live ; 
and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die." 
Consequently, if we die, we live, and if we live at His coming, 
we do not die, but are changed and translated. Death is 
sleep to the body, but the soul lives and is carried by angels 
to Paradise. It is only a departure home. 

We do not know where Paradise is located, but it is a place 
and not only a condition. The distance thither should not 



197 

disturb us, because in the spiritual realms distance does not 
count much. We are familiar with the speed of sunlight, 
and still we do not hold that the heavenly home is so distant 
as some think. If we consider the vastness of the universe, 
it is not conceivable that Paradise should be located beyond 
or outside the created universe. There must be a center in 
creation. Earth is the only dwelling-place of men in material 
bodies, and angelic beings live in the other habitable spheres. 
God must have a special reason in selecting the earth for man 
to inhabit. And if man was created in the image of God 
and, therefore, was the climax in creation, it is reasonable 
to think that the throne of God is nearer earth than the so- 
called milky way, which probably is the periphery of the 
created universe. Although it may sound sentimental, and 
there is no distance to God, it is likely that for our sake God 
would place His central government nearer the abode of 
man, as He loved man to such an extent that, when man had 
fallen, He sent His Son to earth to redeem man. 

But wherever the place of the blessed is located, it is a 
place and state of bliss. It is true that Paul would have 
preferred, as he calls it, to be clothed upon and translated, 
but he also states in the connection of expressing such a 
wish : "We are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather 
to be absent from the body, and to be (present) at home 
with the Lord." And he also knew what he was talking 
about, because he had been in Paradise, although he did 
not know if he was in the body, or not. And he had other 
assurances by the Scriptures, by the apostles and by the 
Spirit. It is difficult for us to understand the life of the soul 
without a body, but we know that Moses on the Mount of 
Transfiguration, although not raised from the dead, had as 
a soul a form, was recognized and could talk. The souls 
mentioned in Rev. 6: 10 cried with a great voice and peti- 
tioned the Lord. The dead have, therefore, consciousness 
and self-consciousness, and they know one another. They 
rest from their labors, but they are not sleeping. They can 
see, hear, talk, play, praise, meditate and enjoy life. They 



198 

have memories of the past and expectancy in regard to the 
future, waiting for the glorious resurrection and the king- 
dom of God. It is not a complete condition, but a state of 
comfort, growth in knowledge and blessed companionship. 
And at the consummation the blessed souls receive their 
new spiritual bodies and participate in the glorious scenes 
of the second advent. They do not need to fear the judg- 
ment, because to them it means the perfect glory and all the 
joys of heaven. They will see the renewed heavenly uni- 
verse and the new earth, the many mansions in the Father's 
house and eternally dwell in their glorious abodes. In the 
book of Revelation there is presented to us a prospectus of 
the kingdom of God which is so beautiful that we cannot 
fully realize its import. There we see in the visions the New 
Jerusalem coming down towards earth. It is evidently the 
capital of the universal kingdom of God. In this city is the 
throne of God. There the blessed will enjoy the beatific 
vision of the triune God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
Although the city is large, even according to the literal di- 
mensions, it is clear that not all the saved will have their 
homes there, because it is the capital of the King of kings. 
The citizens of the kingdom will be given homes all over 
in the new heavens, not to mention the new earth. When 
we think of the vastness of the renewed constellations, stars 
and suns, there are indeed many mansions to dwell in. Even 
now the starry worlds are no empty spheres, but inhabited 
by the angelic hosts of principalities, dominions and powers. 
We cannot be so narrowminded as to believe that all the 
stars are only illuminations for this small planet. The in- 
numerable hosts of heaven must also have homes. And we 
read in the Bible that the children of God shall have a king- 
dom. They will be kings and rule for ever and ever. We 
are told that they shall judge or rule angels. And the gates 
of the capital, the New Jerusalem, will always be open in 
order that the rulers, or kings, may enter to see the King of 
kings, report and receive orders. There will be glorious 
meetings and blessed companionship with the saints of old, 



199 

with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the rest, with apostles 
and with saved relations and friends. Then we can talk of 
the past life and of the new, and there will be no death to 
separate us. And best of all, the life with God in His visible 
appearance ! We could continue to enlarge upon these glori- 
ous topics, because the Bible gives more information than 
the average reader is aware of, but it is not necessary. And 
it is self-evident that the every thing surpassing new world 
will be real in all its scenery and in all its conditions. If 
God has made this present world so beautiful, where sinners 
dwell, how much more glorious will the world be where He 
and His children dwell ! In the Bible the Spirit uses human 
figures, but there must be a corresponding reality. God will 
be true in all His promises, and it will be a glory which no 
human eye on earth has seen and no human thought could 
even dream of. 

The souls or spirits of the blessed in Paradise will enjoy 
the perfect heavenly bliss when raised from the dead, and 
the living saints are changed and with the raised they are 
translated, being together caught up in the clouds to meet 
the Lord in the air : "And so shall we ever be with the Lord" 
(1 Thess. 4: 17). We have already in this section called 
attention to the great change at the consummation, but we 
desire to emphasize the reality of the life in the Kingdom 
of God, when the blessed in their new bodies have perfect 
organs to live fully the heavenly life. If some Christians 
cannot understand the ability to see, hear and speak in the 
intermediate state, they must be convinced as to the concrete 
and real life after the resurrection. But no religion gives 
such comfort as Christianity, when questions are propounded 
in regard to death, the intermediate state and eternal life, 
or the great and grand hereafter. 

The more we fill out the picture within the limits of revela- 
tion, we feel the superiority of the Eschatology of the Chris- 
tian religion. Even non-Christian people and adherents of 
other religions might be convinced if they would impartially 
compare the Eschatology of Christianity and the picture of 



200 

life to come as presented in the ethnic religions. And if 
they, for the time being at least, would drop all attempts 
to solve religious problems and instead learn by experience, 
they would soon see a better light than the so-called light 
of Asia and all other lights ; and they would walk in the true 
Light of the world and accept Christ as the only Master. 
Christianity is God's final word to men. The time to decide 
is now and not when we meet the Master face to face. As 
we all must leave this world, it is senseless to postpone the 
main question : What shall we do to be saved ?■ If the Bible 
does not answer that question, there is no answer. As 
students of Apologetics we should ever keep in mind that 
the best Apology of the Bible is the Bible ; and, we repeat it, 
the best way to find out is by experiment in Christian ex- 
perience. Then each one can say : Eureka, or, I have found 
it, or, to use another phrase : Veni, vidi, vici, which means : 
I came, I saw, I conquered ! 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



BOOKS ON APOLOGETICS AND COL- 
LATERAL READING. 

1. On General Apologetics and Evidence. 

Ebrard: "Apologetics," 3 vols.; Frank: "System of the 
Christian Certainty" ; Christlieb : "Modern Doubt and Chris- 
tian Belief"; Bruce: "Apologetics"; Orr: "The Christian 
View of God and the World"; Fisher: "The Grounds of 
Theistic and Christian Belief"; Luthardt: "Fundamental 
Moral and Saving Truths" ; Smith : "Apologetics" ; Stearns : 
"The Evidence of Christian Experience"; Butler: "The 
Analogy of Religion"; Godet: "Defence of the Christian 
Faith." 

2. On Revelation, Theism, Etc. 

Auberlen: "The Divine Revelation"; Diman: "The The- 
istic Arguments"; Flint: "Theism," "Anti-Theistic Theo- 
ries"; Harris: Philosophical Basis of Theism"; Janet: 
"Final Causes"; Keyser: "The Rational Test"; Mead: "Su- 
pernatural Revelation"; Micou: "Basic Ideas in Religion"; 
Remensnyder: "Reason, History and Religion." 

3. On Creation. 

Bettex : "The First Page of the Bible" ; "The Six Days of 
Creation"; Gridley: "The First Chapter of Genesis as the 
Foundation for Science and Religion" ; Dawson :*"The Origin 
of the World"; Holbrook: "The Panorama of Creation." 

4. On the Bible, Criticism, Inspiration, Etc. 

Home : "An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowl- 
edge of the Scriptures"; Orr: "The Problem of the Old 
Testament"; Green: "The Higher Criticism of the Penta- 
teuch" ; Chambers : "Moses and His Recent Critics" ; Girdle- 



204 

stone: "The Building Up of the Old Testament"; Wells: 
"Why We Believe the Bible" ; Behrends : "The Old Testa- 
ment Under Fire"; Schmauk: "The Negative Criticism and 
the Old Testament" ; Zahn : "Introduction to the New Testa- 
ment" ; Gregory : "The Canon and Text of the New Testa- 
ment"; Haas: "Biblical Criticism" ; Gregory (D. S.) : "Why 
Four Gospels?" Bettex: "The Bible and Modern Criticism"; 
Collett : "All About the Bible" ; Bettex : "The Bible the Word 
of God"; "The Word of Truth"; Cave: "The Inspiration of 
the Old Testament" ; Brookes (J. A.) : "God Spake All These 
Words"; Lee: "The Inspiration of the Scriptures"; Mc- 
intosh (H.) : "Is Christ Infallible and the Bible True?"; 
Orr : "Revelation and Inspiration" ; Pierson : "The Inspired 
Word"; "Many Infallible Proofs"; Faunce: "The Mature 
Man's Difficulties with the Bible"; Haley: "Alleged Dis- 
crepancies of the Bible"; Tuck: "Handbook of Biblical Dif- 
ficulties"; Mozley: "Lectures on the Old Testament"; Tor- 
rey: "Difficulties in the Bible"; Johnson (Franklin) : "The 
Quotations of the New Testaments from the Old" ; Gausen : 
"Theopneustia, The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Script- 
ures"; Saphir (Adolph) : "Christ and the Scriptures"; Lee: 
"The Inspiration of the Scriptures"; Kaftan (Julius) : "Je- 
sus and Paulus." 

■ 

5. On Archeology, Exploration, Monumental Evidence, Etc, 

Clay: "Light on the Old Testament from Babel"; Hil- 
precht : "Explorations in Bible Lands During the Nineteenth 
Century"; Sayce: "The Higher Criticism and the Monu- 
ments" ; "Monuments, Facts and Higher Critical Theories" ; 
Kyle: "The Deciding Voice of the Monuments in Biblical 
Criticism" ; Kittel : "The Babylonian Excavations and Early 
Bible History"; Petrie (Flinders) : "Researches in Sinai"; 
"Hyksos and Israelite Cities"; Urquhart: "Archeology's 
Solution of Old Testament Problems" ; Naville : "Archeology 
in the Old Testament." 



205 

6. On Miracles, the Bible and Science, Answer to Prayers. 

Read Christlieb's lecture on miracles in his "Modern 
Doubt and Christian Belief " ; Bettex : "The Miracle" ; Stein- 
meyer: "Miracles of Our Lord"; Laidlaw: "The Miracles 
of Our Lord"; Wendland: "Miracles and Christianity"; 
Lamb : "Miracle and Science" ; Bettex : "Science and Chris- 
tianity"; Smyth: "Through Science to Faith"; Johnston 
(Howard A.) : "Scientific Faith"; Rice (W. N.) : "Christian 
Faith in an Age of Science" ; Schields : "Scientific Evidences 
of Revealed Religion" ; Calderwood : "Science and Religion" ; 
Anderson: "A Doubter's Doubt About Science and Relig- 
ion"; Wright: "Scientific Confirmations of the Old Testa- 
ment"; Reusch: "Nature and the Bible"; Kurtz: "The Bible 
and Astronomy." 

Patton : "Prayer and its Remarkable Answers" ; Fleming : 
"The Dynamic of All-Prayer"; Hallimond (John G.) : "The 
Miracle of Answered Prayer"; Faris: "The Book of An- 
swered Prayer." 

7. On Prophecy. 

Gloag : "The Messianic Prophecies" ; Keith : "Evidence of 
the Truth of the Christian Religion derived from the literal 
fulfillment of Prophecy"; Seiss: "Voices From Babylon"; 
Guinness : "The Approaching End of the Age" ; "Light for 
the Last Days" ; KeiPs and Delitzsch's Commentaries on the 
Old Testament; Lange's Commentary; Weidner: "Annota- 
tions on the Revelation of St. John" (Luth. Com.) ; Urqu- 
hart : "The Wonders of Prophecy." 

8. On Anthropological Questions, Evolution, Etc. 

On Doctrinal questions under this heading and in all, 
study Dogmatics. Laidlaw : "The Bible Doctrine of Man" ; 
Delitzsch : "System of Biblical Phychology" ; Muller (Juli- 
us) : "The Christian Doctrine of Sin"; Orr: "God's Image 
in Man"; Wright: "Origin and Antiquity of Man"; Town- 
send: "Adam and Eve"; "The Deluge: History or Myth?"; 



206 

Orr: "The Problem of Sin"; Ballard: "Why Does Not God 
Intervene?"; Kellog: "Darwinism To-day" ; Bergson: "Cre- 
ative Evolution." As a comparative study some students 
may be interested in works of Drummond, Fiske, LeConte, 
Wallace, et al. Patterson : "The Other Side of Evolution" ; 
Dennert : "At the Deathbed of Darwinism." 

9. On Christological and Soteriological Questions, Christian 
Science and other Beliefs. 

Study leading Dogmatics; Bettex: "What Think Ye of 
Christ?"; "The Glory of the Triune God"; Dorner: "History 
of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ" ; Fairbairn : "The 
Place of Christ in Modern Theology" ; Forsyth : "The Person 
and Place of Jesus Christ" ; Grist : "The Historic Christ in 
the Faith of To-day" ; Liddon : "The Divinity of Our Lord" ; 
Mackintosh : "The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ" ; 
Schaff : "The Person Christ"; Orr: "The Virgin Birth of 
Christ" ; Sweet : "The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ" ; 
Case: "The Historicity of Jesus"; Cameron: "The Renas- 
cence of Jesus"; Dale: "The Living Christ and the Four 
Gospels"; Orr: "The Resurrection of Jesus"; Knowling: 
"The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ." 

Dale : "The Atonement" ; Forsyth : "The Work of Christ" ; 
Remensnyder: "The Atonement and Modern Thought"; 
Jacobs : "Elements of Religion." 

Storrs: "Divine Origin of Christianity"; Mullins: "Why 
Is Christianity True?"; Haas (J. A. W.) : "Trends of 
Thought and Christian Truth"; Drawbridge: "Common 
Objections to Christianity"; Fairbairn: "The Philosophy of 
the Christian Religion"; Tisdall (St. Clair) : "Christianity 
and Other Faiths" ; Sandt : "Christian Science, Weighed and 
Tested" ; Coombs : "Religious Delusions" ; Coppage : "Chris- 
tian Science in the Light of Reason"; Saussaye: "Manual 
of the Science of Religion" ; Muir : "Modern Substitutes for 
Christianity" ; Zwemer : "Mohammed or Christ" ; Newman : 
"Christianity Triumphant." 



207 

10. On Christian and Religious Experience, 

Frank: "System of the Christian Certainty"; Stearns: 
"The Evidence of Christian Experience" ; compare the view 
of Dorner in his "System of Christian Doctrine"; James: 
"Varieties of Religious Experience"; Clark (Henry W.) : 
"The Philosophy of Christian Experience"; Gerberding: 
"New Testament Conversions" ; Begbie : "Twice-Born Men." 

11. On Immortality and Hereafter. 

Fosdick : "The Assurance of Immortality" ; Mackintosh : 
"Immortality and the Future" ; Thomson : "Life, Death, and 
Immortality"; Remensnyder: "Doom Eternal"; James: 
"Human Immortality"; Dahle: "Life After Death"; Sal- 
mond: "Christian Doctrine of Immortality"; Seiss: "The 
Apocalypse." 

12. Manuals. 

Fisher: "Manual of Christian Evidences"; Keyser: "A 
System of Christian Evidence"; Knox: "The Direct and 
Fundamental Proofs of the Christian Religion"; Row: 
"Manual of Christian Evidences"; Stewart: "Handbook of 
Christian Evidences." 

Some of the books have been selected among many with 
the view to assist the regular student in his special study, 
in his preparing papers for class and for Thesis-work. 
Several of the books mentioned may be a guide for the 
general reader in studying special topics in which he may 
be interested. 



ORA ET LABORA 



INDEX 



INDEX 



Abelard, 127. 

Absolute science, 155. 

Achilles heel of the Priestly Code, 

67. 
Acts 7:6, 74. 

" 9:1—30, 121. 

« 22:7—21, 121. 

" 26:4—23, 121. 
Advent, second, 183. 
Agassiz, 89. 
Agnosticism, 79. 
Alpha Centuari, 48. 
Amraphel, 68. 
Angels, abode of, 170. 
Angelology, 170—172. 
Anselm, 30, 31. 
Anti-Resurrection theories, 122 — 

126. 
Apologetics, definition of, 17. 
Apologetics, divisions of, 30. 
Apology, 17. 
Apologeticus, 20. 
Apocalyptical Facts, 55. 
Aristides, 19. 
Aristoteles, 35, 36. 
Astruc, 24. 
Athenagoras, 19. 
Atheism, 50. 

Atonement, vicarious, 127 — 130. 
" eternal punishment in, 

129. 
" subject and object in, 

129, 166. 
" no mathematical con- 

ception in, 129. 
Attributes of God, immutability of, 

128, 129. 
Augustine, 20, 22, 30, 41, 134. 
Autolycus, 19. 



Baptism, contents of, 143, 144. 

Baur, 24, 71, 72. 

Beginning and development of the 

Christian experience, 143 — 154. 
Belshazzar, 69, 70. 
Berkeley, 38, 39, 136. 
Bible and experience, 162. 
"Book of the Law" of Moses, 66. 
Bossuet, 36. 
Brooding, meaning of in Genesis, 1, 

43. 
Buddha, 134. 
Bushnell, 130. 
Butler, 23. 

Canon, 56. 

Carlyle, 126. 

Cartesius, 31, 139. 

Cause and effect, 161. 

Causa finalis, 35. 

Celsus, 30, 103, 184. 

Certainty and faith, 150, 151. 

Certainty in other religions, 160. 

Christ, Divinity of, 115—117. 

Christ, Resurrection of, 117 — 122. 

Christianity, the supreme religion, 

131—134. 
Christianity triumphant, 134. 
Christian experience, 140 — 154. 
Christlieb, 82. 
Christian Science, 98 — 100. 
Christus-mythe, 110. 
Clement of Alexandria, 20. 
Clement of Rome, 113. 
Classification of Theism, 48. 
Comte, 52. 

Conscience, proof from, 32. 
Contradictions, 74, 75. 
Cosmical Light, 43. 



212 



Copernican system of Astronomy, 

44. 
Cosmological argument, 33. 
Conversion, factors in, 147. 
Conversion, psychological problem 

in, 147. 
2 Cor. 11:14, 194. 
Creation of the world, 39 — 48. 
1 Augustine, 41. 

" Days of creation, 42. 

of man, 84—87. 
Creation ex nihilo, 45. 
Credibility of the books of the 

Bible, 56—58. 
Church, problem of, 173—176. 
definition of, 174. 
" mission, 175. 
unity of, 174. 
Cyaxares II, 70. 
Cyprian, 21. 

Cyril, of Alexandria, 21. 
Cyrus, 70. 

Daniel, 68—70. 

Daniel, 12:13, 186. 

Darius the Mede, 70. 

Darwin, 88. 

Davidson, 189. 

Dawson, 88. 

Day, the seventh, 43. 

Days in Genesis, 42, 43. 

Deism, 78. 

Democritus, 50. 

Deuteronomy, 66. 

Development theory, 25. 

Diatessaron, 76. 

Diognet, 18, 19. 

Divinity of Christ, 115, 116. 

Document hypothesis, 24. 

Drews, 110, 111. 

Driver, 65. 

Earth, 41. 

Egg, human, 86. 

Elias, 193. 



Eph. 6:12, 194. 
Epiphanius, 111. 
Ephraem Syrus, 76. 
Eternal punishments, 189 — 191. 
Eusebius of Caesarea, 21. 
Evidence, definition of, 159. 
" external, 159. 

" verification of, 160. 

Eve, formed from Adam's rib, 85, 

86. 
Evil, moral, 92—94. 

" physical, 94—96. 
Existence of God, 30—38. 
Exodus, 3, 65. 

3:15,16, 65. 
6:3, 65. 
Experience, natural, 136. 

Christian, 140—154. 
" in the knowledge of God, 
natural and Christian, 150. 
Experience, possibility and method 

of verification, .155 — 164. 
Experience and Mysticism, 158. 
Experimental Certainty as to lead- 
ing objects of Faith, 164—166. 
Ezekiel 44, 67. 

Factors in Conversion, 147. 
Fall from Baptismal grace, 144, 145. 
Fichte, 130, 137, 139. 
Fragment hypothesis, 24. 
Frank, 26, 32, 142. 

Gal. 4:6, 152. 
Gaunilo, 30, 31. 
Genesis 1:5, 42. 

" 2:4, 42. 

" 3, 64. 

" 12:10—20, 65. 

" 14, 65. 

" 20:18, 65. 

" 22:1—19, 65. 

" 28:10—22, 65. 
Genesis and John 1, 46. 



213 



Genuineness of the books of the 

Bible, 56—58. 
Gobryas, 70. 
Graf — Wellhausen, 16. 
Grotius, 22. 

Haeckel, 88. 

Hammurabi, 67. 

Hebr. 4:1—11, 34. 

Hebr. 11:3, 43. 

Hegelian pantheism, objection to 

incarnation, 109. 
History of Apologetics, 18 — 26. 
Historicity of Jesus, 110 — 115. 
Hippolytus, 111, 112. 
Hittite empire, 68. 
Holyoake, 53. 
Homer, 177. 
Hume, 33, 80, 82, 172. 

Idealism, Berkeley, 136. 

Pichte, 136. 
Immanence of God, 77. 
Immortality, 177 — 187. 
Immutability of God's attributes, 

128. 
Impersonation, 194. 
Incarnation, 102, 103. 
Induction, spiritual laws of, 153. 
Infidelity, causes of, 26 — 28. 
Isa. 20, 67. 
Inspiration, 59, 62, 63. 

plenary, 62. 
" dynamic, 62. 

verbal, 62. 
Instinct and immortality, 179, 180. 
Invisible principles, 186. 

James 1:17, 48. 

James (William), on immortality, 

180, 181. 
Janet, 37. 

Job 19: 25—27, 186. 
J and E documents, 64. 



John 7:16,17, 163. 

" 11:25,26, 196. 

" 14:9,23, 149. 

" 14:26, 115. 

" 16:27, 153. 
1 John 5:9,10, 163. 
John the Baptist and miracles, 83. 
John of Damascus, 22. 
Josephus, 70, 112, 113. 
Josephus' Antiquities, 113. 
Julian, 21. 
Justification, 148. 
Justin, the Martyr, 19, 113. 

Kant, 32, 37, 137, 139, 156. 

Kantism, 156. 

Keim, 124. 

Kingdom of God and future glory, 
196—199. 

1 Kings 22:19—23, 194. 

Knowledge, sources and faculty of, 
157. 

Koran, on the paradise of the Mos- 
lem, 191. 

Lange, 53. 

Lardner, 23. 

Leibnitz, 97, 155. 

Levites, 67. 

Life eternal, 191 — 199. 

Light and God's thought, 47. 

Light and the Father of lights, 48. 

Lord's Supper, 152. 

Lotze, 156. 

Lucifer, 42. 

Man, creation of, 84. 
Man, fall of, 92. 
Man's nature, 90 — 92. 
Max Miiller, 192. 
Marcion, 113, 114. 
Marsilius Ficinus, 22. 
Martineau's theory on Christ's res- 
urrection, 125. 
Martineau, 127. 



214 



Materialism, 50. 
Matt. 6:13, 172. 
Matt. 26:63,64, 116. 
Medium, 194. 
Mesozoic period, 44. 
Mill, 52. 

Minucius Felix, 20. 
Miracles, 80—83. 

" and Christian experience, 
165. 
Mivart, 88. 

Modified Document theory, 25. 
Modern criticism, 60 — 73. 
Moral evil, 92—94. 
Moral theory, atonement, 127 — 130. 
Moses, 84, 86, 193. 

Nabonidus, 69. 

Nature of man, 90 — 92. 

Natural Experience and mind, 138. 

Natural selection, 88. 

Nebueadnezzar, 69. 

Nehemia, ch. 8, 66. 

Nero, 113. 

Nescience, 79. 

New Jerusalem, 198. 

Newton, 155. 

"New Thought", 98—100. 

Nirvana, 182, 192. 

Noachian deluge, 75. 

Numbers 25:9 and 1 Cor. 10:8, 74 

Octavius, 20. 

Ontological proof, Anselm, 30, 31. 

Augustine, 30,31. 

Cartesius, 30, 31. 
Optimism, 97. 
Oxyrhynchus logia, 77. 

Pantheism, 51. 

" and Christian experience, 
157—158. 
Pascal, 52. 

Paul, conversion of, 121. 
Paradise, 196, 197. 



Pessimism, 97. 
2 Peter 3:5,8, 42. 
Peter, Gospel of, 76, 77. 
Petrinism and Paulinism, 71. 
Pfleiderer, 32, 73. 
Philosophy of Religion, 53. 

of History, 54. 

of Christianity, 54. 
Physical evil, 94 — 96. 
Philippi, 141. 

Pilate, "Acts of Pilate", 112. 
Pindar, 178. 
Plato, 177. 

Pliny of Bithynia, 113. 
Polemics, definition of, 17, 18. 
Pope, 97. 
Positivism, 52. 
Prayer, 152. 
Priestly Code, 66. 
Probability in knowledge, 160. 
Probation of angels, 171. 
Prophecy, 59, 70, 165, 175. 
Pseudo-evolution, 87 — 89. 
Psychical mind, 180. 
Psychical Research, 192, 193. 
Punishment eternal in Christ's vi- 
carious suffering, 129. 
Punishment eternal, 189 — 191. 

Quadratus, apology of, 19. 
Quotation of the O. T. in the N. T., 
73. 

Rameses 1, 68. 

Rameses 2, 68. 

Rational Realism, 32. 

Rationalism and the Experience, 

167, 168. 
Rationality of endless punishment, 

189, 190. 
Reality of conscience and the moral 

world, 139. 
Redemption, man's need of, 102. 
Regeneration, 148, 149. 
Reimarus, 103. 



215 



Reincarnation, 192. 
Ronan's "Vie de Jesus", 107—109. 
Renovation, 151 — 154. 
Resurrection of Christ, 117 — 122. 

" story of, 119, 

120. 
Resurrection of Christ, objections, 

120—126. 
Resurrection of the body, 183 — 188. 
" " " identity of 

body, 186. 
Resurrection of the body, John's 

testimony, 188. 
Resurrection of the body, Paul's 

arguments, 184 — 186. 
Resurrection of the body, possibil- 
ity of and proofs, 184—188. 
Ritschl, 156. 
Rom, 1:19,20, 138. 

" 2:15, 139. 

" 7:21—23, 157. 

" 8:16, 151. 

u 8:26, 152. 

" 10:14,15—17, 143. 
Rousseau, 106. 

-Samuel, 193. 

Sargon 1, 67 

Satan, 171, 172. 

Saviour, the work of, 126. 

Savonarola, 22. 

Schechter: "Documents of Jewish 
Sectaries", 112. 

Schenkel, 24, 103. 

Scientific test of spiritual experi- 
ence, 161—164. 

Science and the Bible, 41, 44, 45. 

Schopenhauer, 97, 98. 

Secularism, 53. 

Seeming contradictions against the 
Church, 174, 175. 

Semler, 171. 

Seneca, 113. 

Sheba, queen of, 163. 



Sin according to Agnosticism, 94. 
" Christian Sci- 
ence, 100. 

Sin according to Evolution, 94. 
" Pantheism, 94. 

Sin, fact of, 93, 94. 

Sinai Syriac Palimpsest, 76. 

Socinians and atonement, 161 — 164. 

Socrates, 177. 

Spencer, 79. 

Spinoza, 24. 

Spirit, indwelling proof of resurrec- 
tion, 188. 

Spiritual telegram theory, 123, 124. 

Strauss, 123. 

Strauss' "Life of Christ," 104—106. 

Supplemental hypothesis, 24. 

Swedenborg, 192. 

Swoon theory, 122. 

"Synthetic idealization of our ex- 
istence", 52. 

Tacitus, 113. 

Tatian, 76. 

Telegram, spiritual, 123, 124. 

Telepathy, 124, 125, 194, 195. 

Teleological proof, 35. 

Tertiary era, 44. 

Tertullian, 20, 113. 

" adv. Marcion, 114. 
Testimonium Spiritus Sancti inter- 
num, 164, 165. 
Theism, classification of, 32, 48 — 50. 
Theophilus of Antioch, 19. 
Theodoret, 21. 
Thomas of Aquinum, 22. 
Thotmes 3, 68. 
Thought in Creation, 45. 
Time and Civilization, 44. 
Transmigration, 192. 
"The Trial of Theism", 53. 
Trinity, economical, 166. 

ontological, 168, 169. 



216 



Uncorrupted preservation of the 

Biblical books, 58. 
Unity of the human race, 89, 90. 
Unitio and Unio Mystica, 149. 
Universe, not eternal, 48. 

Valhalla, 191. 

Verification of the Christian expe- 
rience, 155 — 160. 

Verification of the Christian expe- 
rience, method of, 160 — 164. 

Virgil, 178. 



Vision theory. 123. 
Vives, Ludvig, 22. 

Wellhausen, 25, 64, 66, 67. 
Will and moral freedom, 93. 
Will suspended, 93. 
Wolfenbuttel Fragments, 23, 103. 

World, real, 38, 39, 137, 138. 

Yom, 42. 

Zahn, 76. 



CORRIGENDA 

Page 29, §4, 5, read Eschatological. 

Page 132, b., 1st line, read after religions: do not show themselves 
openly in full. 
Page 144, 9th line, it should be discuss instead of discusss. 
Page 158, 20th line, instead of tained read tainted. 
Page 172, 17th line, instead of yes read eyes. 



LUTHERAN SEMINARY 
TEXT BOOK SERIES 



LUTHERAN SEMINARY TEXT BOOK SERIES 



APOLOGETICS 



or 



A System oi Christian Evidence 

Blj CONRAD EMIL LINDBERG, D.D., LL.D. 

PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, AUGUSTANA THEOLOLIGAL SEMI- 
NARY, ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS, AND AUTHOR OF "DOGMATICS 
AND HISTORY OF DOGMAS" AND OTHER BOOKS. 

This is the work of an able Lutheran theologian who offers 
us a text-book that has grown out of his experience in the 
class room. The main apologetic topics are treated in an able 
and perspicacious manner, and the student who has digested 
the contents is well prepared to profit by the further develop- 
ment of the subject by the teacher. 

The book begins with a brief history of Apologetics. After 
a short review of the causes of infidelity, the author comes 
to the treatment of his subject, to prove the truth of Chris- 
tianity, and viewing it from different directions, he divides 
it, as follows: Theological, Anthropological, Soteriological, 
Pneumatological, and Eschatological Apologetics. The subject 
of Christian experience is fully treated in the article on 
Pneumatological apologetics, and in closing, the author places 
special emphasis on the Bible itself as the best apology, and 
Christian experience as the best way to become thoroughly 
established in the Christian faith. A valuable addition, be- 
sides the very complete Index, is the Bibliography, or a fairly 
exhaustive list of books on Apologetics and collateral reading. 

Although mainly intended for the theological student, the 
book will be found to appeal to Christian laymen in general 
who take a deeper interest in things spiritual, and persons lack- 
ing a theological training may study the book to advantage. 
The style is clear, even to the la3 T men, and in giving fuller treat- 
ment to some parts of the work the author evidently had in 
mind a circle of readers beyond those immediately concerned. 

Cloth, 216 pages. Price $1.50 net. 

AUGUSTANA BOOK CONCERN 

Rock Island, Illinois. 



LUTHERAN SEMINARY TEXT BOOK SERIES 

Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics. 
By Prof. J. L. NEVE, D.D., Springfield, Ohio. 

This book offers an historical introduction to the Oecumenical and Particular 
Creeds of Lutheranisiu, a Synopsis of their contents, and an interpretation of their 
theology on the basis of the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession. Prof. 
Geo. J. Fritschel, D. D., has furnished the Synopsis of the Apology, Smalcald Articles 
and Large Catechism, and has also contributed the chapter on the Formula of 
Concord. The Section containing the interpretation of the Doctrinal Articles of the 
Augustana, which covers pages 100-292, will be welcomed as a further expansion of 
the subjects treated in the author's little book "The Augsburg Confession." 

Cloth, gilt markings, 450 pages, price $1.75 



A Brief Historu of the Lutheran Church 

in America. 
By Prof. J. L. NEVE, D.D., Springfield, Ohio. 

This is a work which was first published in 1903 as a little volume of 200 pages, 
and was introduced as a textbook in almost all Lutheran Seminaries of this country. 
In this second edition all historical matter has been brought up to date, and with 
the co-operation of representatives of the different Lutheran bodies the endeavor has 
been made to produce an objective history of Lutheranism in America. Special 
features of this edition are (1) a detailed history of the developments leading up to 
the break in Fort Wayne, (2) a reliable history of the Scandinavian bodies, prepared 
under the supervision of their own men. 

To be had both in the German and the English language. 

Cloth, gilt markings, 469 pages, price $1.75 

AUGUSTANA BOOK CONCERN, 
Rock Island, Illinois. 



LUTHERAN SEMINARY TEXT BOOK SERIES 



Outlines of Biblical Hermeneutics. 

By Prof. GEO. H. SCHODDE, Ph.D., Capital 
University. 

flu ti e alise aims to jBsh**«* chiefly the teacher; '■--- HBJe itaenl h ta 

character, purpose and interpretation. Its chief co n t ents are (1) The Bible as 
object of Interpretation; (2) General Hermeneutics ; (3) Special Htiinnwut 

Cloth, gilt markings, 200 pages $1.50 



Biblical Dogmatics. 

By Prof. ANDREW G. VOIGT, D.D., LL.D., 
Columbia, South Carolina. 

Concerning: this book: Ike publisher writes : "We are enthusiastic about Una book 
Dr. Yoigt's, whose treatment is both dear and scholarly. While it is more <***»■« 
than popular, technical theological terms have been, avoided or explained, and f 
":•:■:> :&.- really if nr-r reaiilj :-e urierrr.rof zj zzz :•; ■ — , ■ :- r-e:-rl=." Th- i_t"- 
is known as a successful teacher in the Tditheian CSmrch, and bavins been an untzri 
reader of German as well as KngKsh lite r atur e, Ids work represents, in brief fori 
the results of matured <j™fe™g in the field of Dogmatics. 

Cloth, 250 pages, Price $1.00 



In Preparation. 

Among- the Lutheran Bk— ■— r y Text-Books which are in preparation and which 

will likely leare z'te press iz. ~-Y-~ i; i ~ :r> :-- ~ i-.e-iJL-ri 2= azf :r_e :z E:ciLl?Ti:s 
by Dr. M. Ren whose splendid scholarship and **mntt*A fnww as instructor in these 
branches fits him especially for the task as*£p**l htm. 

Also "Introduction to the Xew Testament" by Prof. JL G. Tressler, PhJ)., D.D., 
Wittenberg Seminary, S pringfi eld. Ohio. 

AUGUSTANA BOOK CONCERN, 
Rock Island, Illinois. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



II 

(tiffin 



| 

1 IliilHIl 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

in i I 



012 059 104 6 



